House of Commons
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
1. What support his Department is providing to areas seeking a devolution deal.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
May I wish Shanah Tovah to all Members, and to those in the wider community, who are celebrating the Jewish new year? May I also say how relieved I am to see that an Opposition Front Bench team willing to serve has turned up today?
This one-nation Government are determined to devolve power to every part of the country—town and country. In response to our invitation, 38 areas have submitted proposals for devolved powers and budgets. We will work with every area over the coming months to negotiate transformational devolution deals.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer on this most auspicious day.
North Devon District Council and other local authorities in Devon and Somerset have submitted an expression of interest to the Government for combined authority status—a move that I welcome. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming it? Does he agree that granting greater regional powers is in the spirit of greater devolution for people in the south-west?
Greg Clark
I do welcome it. I read the proposals from councils and businesses in Devon and Somerset. One of the benefits of devolved funding would be that infrastructure decisions were increasingly made locally. I know that the north Devon link road is close to my hon. Friend’s heart. In fact, I heard him talk about it on Radio Devon, and so confident is he that this investment will be made that he has invited Her Majesty the Queen to come and open it next year. That is the kind of positive thinking we need.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
On the devolution deal, does the Secretary of State take a view on what these new authorities should call themselves? “Combined west midlands authority” is rather a mouthful, and I would much rather have “Greater Birmingham”.
Greg Clark
I think the nuance with which the hon. Lady asked her question answers it for her. It is better for local people to make these decisions rather than for a Secretary of State to determine them. It is very good that the authorities across the west midlands are coming together and working so well.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The great county of Hampshire has submitted a compelling bid for devolution. Does the Secretary of State agree that further devolution could be pivotal in unlocking further economic potential in the southern powerhouse as well as the northern powerhouse?
Greg Clark
I do agree. “Powerhouse” is an apt description, because the economy of the south and the part of Hampshire that my right hon. Friend represents is really firing on all cylinders. I remember launching the growth deal there, where the new centre for 5G technology is up and running, creating many thousands of jobs.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
When the Minister brags about devolution proposals for local government, why does he not do the decent thing and say to local government that the coalition Government and this one have taken up to 40% off local authorities? Pay that money back, and then you can start work.
Greg Clark
During the recess I had a very cordial and constructive meeting with the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s local authority in Derbyshire, and the one accord that we had is that the progress that the coalition Government made in transferring powers from London and Westminster to the regions has been one of the contributory factors to the revival of the regions.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent announcement of the historic devolution deal for Cornwall is a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment not only to the devolution agenda but to a one nation approach to our economy?
Greg Clark
It certainly is. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to his colleagues in Cornwall who were absolutely instrumental in securing that deal. I was delighted to travel down there with the Prime Minister to celebrate it, and indeed to do so over a pint of Tribute with him that very evening.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Opposition Front Benchers. Let me say this: we are ready, willing and able to take the fight to Ministers and eventually to drive them out of office.
The country is far too centralised, and there is clearly, because politics is not working, a political imperative on all of us to seek proper devolution. Devolution tied to spending cuts simply does not work.
It is great that the Government heeded, belatedly, the call to allow some more refugees into our country—we welcome that. Local government and devolved local government came up to the mark straight away, with over 60 councils immediately coming forward. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with local councils about how to deal with this incredibly important matter? Will the Government now hold the national summit that we have been calling for?
Greg Clark
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his post. Members will recall that he was once Parliamentary Private Secretary to Peter Mandelson, and Tony Blair once said that his project would not be complete until Labour learned to love Peter Mandelson. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will update us on how that is progressing.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for devolution. I have found it possible to work on the most cordial terms with Labour authority leaders as well as Conservatives up and down the country, and I hope we will have a constructive working relationship.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary and I chaired a Cabinet Committee meeting on Syria at which the Local Government Association was represented. This morning I spoke to the head of the LGA and, indeed, the Labour leader of Blackpool Council, who told me that local government collectively was working very well with central Government to make sure that we deliver the commitment that has been given.
Jon Trickett
In terms of loving people, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a long way to go to encourage people to love him.
When the Government indicated that funding would be made available to local councils to help refugees and resolve the refugee problems, it was clear that only a one-year financial deal was on offer. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the Chancellor will provide enough money over the five years of this Parliament to help councils to deal with the crisis, because the current financial offer is simply inadequate?
Greg Clark
That is not the case. The one-year commitment is what is allowed under the official development assistance rules. The point of including our local government colleagues in the ministerial group designing the approach is to make sure that every aspect of the funding required is addressed. We will do that consensually with local government.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
2. What support his Department is providing to local authorities to encourage development of brownfield land.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
9. What support his Department is providing to local authorities to encourage development of brownfield land.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to encourage development on brownfield land.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
15. What support his Department is providing to local authorities to encourage development of brownfield land.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
We intend to create a fund to unlock homes on brownfield land for additional housing. We will continue to support the regeneration of brownfield land through a range of measures, including announcing up to £400 million to create housing zones.
Alex Chalk
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important to encourage investment in brownfield land where the site in question, such as Springbank shopping centre and the former Carlton Street post office in my constituency, is a local eyesore that attracts graffiti and other antisocial behaviour?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want brownfield land to be brought back into use and for homes to be built on it. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a diligent constituency MP, will make the case for individual sites in his area. This Government are committed to delivering the houses needed in the right places across the country.
Andrew Stephenson
Greenfield sites across Pendle are under threat because the new Lib Dem and Labour administration of Pendle Borough Council has abandoned plans to spend the £1.5 million allocated for brownfield regeneration under the previous Administration. What more can the Department do to support the people of Pendle and to help fulfil their wish that brownfield is always developed ahead of greenfield?
James Wharton
The Government are setting up a brownfield fund, with £1 billion, and are introducing the brownfield register. We have an expectation that homes will be built, because the country needs them, and that they will be built in the right places, particularly on brownfield sites. My hon. Friend makes a very important point on behalf of individual sites in his constituency about the approach of his local authority. I am sure it will have heard him loud and clear on a matter that his constituents will be very keen to see resolved.
Rebecca Harris
I welcome the Government’s redoubled commitment to support the development of brownfield sites. Does the Minister agree that, with the help of the Government’s new measures and extra effort by local authorities, brownfield sites can be developed more quickly and easily than by leaving large areas of green belt to be developed by large-unit developers, whose business model is not resulting in many houses?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes an important point, informed by her own direct experience. It is important that local authorities do not just plan to deliver the future houses we need in the right places, but ensure that the plans are deliverable. There are examples of best practice across the country, with local authorities delivering completions and the new housing needed, and I know that other authorities will look to them to see what lessons can be learned and what they can do in their own areas.
Pauline Latham
In my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, a large brownfield site is being decontaminated and made ready for redevelopment, but it has been left out of Derby City Council’s core strategy because the council states that the site will not be ready for development until 2028, despite the site manager saying that it will be sooner. Does the Minister agree that we must prioritise building on such brownfield sites?
James Wharton
With the brownfield fund and the accelerated powers we are giving local authorities for planning on suitable brownfield sites, the direction of travel and the intention of Government are clear. Local authorities need to ensure that opportunities in their areas are deliverable and that they are delivered. I am sure that my hon. Friend’s important comments regarding her constituency will have been heard today.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that there is a national shortage of homes and a housing crisis for the people whom we represent. He will not get anywhere with the illusion that that can all be dealt with through brownfield land. Brownfield land is often very expensive and in the wrong place. This Government will not acknowledge that we must build on greenfield to provide the homes that we need, but they do not like it: they are terrified of their constituents.
James Wharton
Listening to our constituents and recognising their concerns is an important part of the planning process. We cannot just ignore local sites of beauty or the value of our environment. It should be recognised and protected and account taken of it in the national planning policy framework. That said, we need to deliver more homes, which is why, on top the measures I have mentioned, the Government are releasing significant amounts of public sector land to deliver another 150,000 homes on brownfield land during this Parliament, meeting our obligations in a way that our constituents recognise is appropriate.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We must get developers to get on and build homes, but does the Minister accept that in a local authority area with sufficient land for building housing it would be inappropriate for a planning authority or the Planning Inspectorate to approve the building of houses on sports grounds when there is a need for them and users who want to keep them open as sports grounds?
James Wharton
The direction from Government is absolutely clear—we want to see more houses built in appropriate places. We want to facilitate and assist local authorities that want to build on brownfield sites to bring the sites back into use and to build the houses that are needed. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure his local authority hears it, too.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister’s ambition to build more houses, in particular on brownfield land, might be good, but is he aware of a recent survey by the Federation of Master Builders that highlighted the fact that many in the construction industry are still struggling to secure finance and that raw materials and skills are in short supply? What is he doing to address those issues?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman raises a range of important points, including the skills agenda, which is part of our devolution discussions in many areas. While I am tempted to go down that route, it is important to focus on what the Government are doing on brownfield, which is very significant. I say again that we have the brownfield fund and the brownfield register, and we are working to accelerate planning on such sites to deliver them and to release public sector land. This Government are doing a lot to deliver housing on brownfield, not on the green fields that some Opposition Members seem to think should be the priority for building.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State or the Minister confirm the average cost per hectare of remediating brownfield land?
James Wharton
The hon. Lady asks for figures I do not have immediately available, but this Government are setting up a significant fund to deliver housing and to free up and make viable brownfield sites. That will make a real difference and will encourage development on the sites that we want developed. I am happy to write to her in due course with the specific figures for which she asks.
Alison Thewliss
I will help the Minister out here—I have some figures to hand. The cost of remediating brownfield land can range from £50,000 per hectare to over £1.7 million per hectare for the most contaminated land. Does he believe that the fund he proposes will be adequate to deal with brownfield land? The reason such land is brownfield, derelict and unused is that it can be difficult to remediate. In the east end of Glasgow, 350 hectares of brownfield land need remediation. How far will the fund go?
James Wharton
A range, of course, is not an average, although I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern. She, like us, wants brownfield land to be regenerated and built on and housing delivered in the right places, and the £1 billion fund being established by the Government will go a long way to doing that. It will make a real difference. It will deliver houses where they are needed—and on brownfield land that has not been used and from which there has been no benefit for far too long.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local government grant formula in directing funding to areas of need.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
14. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local government grant formula in directing funding to areas of need.
The Minister for Communities and Resilience (Mr Mark Francois)
Councils facing the highest demand for services receive substantially more funding, including through formula grant. With the introduction of business rates retention in 2013-14, there has been a deliberate shift away from keeping authorities dependent on grants and towards providing councils with the tools and incentives they need to grow their local economies.
Judith Cummins
The Minister’s implication that areas of need are being fairly treated by the local government grant formula is simply not proven by the evidence. Research by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy found that many councils serving the most in need have been worst hit by the cuts. Indeed, in the list of councils worst hit by the cuts, Bradford council came 353rd out of a possible 383. Surely he agrees this is not fair.
Mr Francois
Bradford has an area spending power of £2,295 per dwelling, which is 10% above the national average, and Bradford council also has £136 million in its reserves. It might want to deploy part of those reserves to address some of the challenges it faces.
Julie Cooper
Since 2010, funding to my constituency has been cut by a staggering 54%. Does the Minister agree that this cannot be acceptable given that during the same period some constituencies have benefited from a rise in funding? Does he realise that the funding formula is seriously flawed and in urgent need of review?
Mr Francois
I do not agree. Burnley has an area spending power of £2,112 per household, which remains above the national average. In 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, we provided Burnley council with a £1.9 million efficiency support grant—equivalent to more than 10% of its spending power—to support long-term changes to bring costs down while continuing to deliver the services that Burnley’s citizens expect. That is nearly £6 million of additional resources, so, given what some other councils have done, the hon. Lady perhaps doth protest too much.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Lancashire County Council tells me its grant is so inadequate that the discretion it used to have in assisting youngsters to go to schools of their choice has now been withdrawn. If a pupil passes a school to get to the school they want to attend, they will be asked to pay £550 for school transport. This is nothing other than a back-door means of raising council tax on hard-working families in Lancashire. Will the Minister look into what is going on, which is an abuse of the discretion system, and ensure that parents can get their youngsters into the school of their choice?
Mr Francois
I know that my hon. Friend has pursued this issue on several occasions, including in a Westminster Hall debate. It is a complicated issue, and local authorities have sometimes had to take difficult decisions on the prioritisation of school transport. There is no easy answer, but he will no doubt continue doggedly to pursue it in the House, as he has today.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
Child refugees orphaned or separated from their parents are arriving in Britain in unprecedented numbers because of the current crisis across the EU, but the Government have chosen to slash funding by 18% for gateway councils, such as Kent, Hillingdon and Croydon, which look after the highest numbers of them. What impact does he think this dreadful decision will have on the councils and, more importantly, the children affected?
Mr Francois
First, I am joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), whom the Prime Minister today appointed Minister for Refugees. He will sit on the Cabinet Sub-Committee looking to address these issues. I am sure the whole House will welcome his appointment.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman attacked us over resources. I have a question to ask him about resources.
Mr Francois
We are familiar with the issue in Kent, because of what happened in Calais and all that was attached to that, and with our colleagues in local government we are looking carefully at the likely cost. That is one of the issues the Cabinet Sub-Committee will address, including with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
6. What support his Department has provided to communities on neighbourhood planning and community rights since May 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Up to March 2015, we provided nearly £50 million to help communities undertake neighbourhood planning and to access community rights and associated initiatives. We are going further and invested another £32 million in April to help even more communities take up their rights.
Mark Menzies
Fylde communities such as Warton and Wrea Green in my constituency have submitted comprehensive local plans to the council. Does the Minister agree that it is important that when the council is finalising the local plan, it takes into account the neighbourhood plans and the wishes of my constituents?
Mr Jones
I concur completely with my hon. Friend’s view. Our planning guidance is clear that local authorities should work in collaboration with neighbourhood planning groups when neighbourhood and local plans are being developed at the same time. Local plans are also subject to at least two opportunities for comment by any interested party.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
A common complaint I receive from residents and communities in Doncaster is about the blight of empty properties. Some 3,800 homes are empty and over 1,000 have been empty for more than a year. That attracts vandalism and antisocial behaviour, and is a blight on property prices. Despite the best efforts of councils, including Doncaster Council, it is hard to get the owners of such properties to get them up to standard and filled with people living in them. Will the Minister agree to review the rights and powers of communities to tackle the scandal of empty homes, without imposing a cost on the taxpayer for the neglect of owners and landlords?
Mr Jones
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. She will be a loss to the shadow Front Bench. Local authorities already have significant powers to bring empty properties back into use. They are incentivised by receiving the new homes bonus to get long-term empty properties back into use. They also have the power to change the council tax regime to charge more council tax on properties that stand empty for a long period. I suggest that she contact her local authority and ask what it is doing about this.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
23. Following a passionate local campaign, planning permission was recently rejected that would have seen the Ascot Tavern, a local pub in Cannock, demolished and replaced by yet another new supermarket. Local campaigners are looking at registering the pub as a community asset. What measures are the Government taking to assist and support communities who find themselves in that situation and similar ones?
Mr Jones
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this important subject. We have removed permitted development rights from pubs that are listed as assets of community value. As was promised in our manifesto, we are committing £1.5 million to a pub loan fund to support community groups in taking ownership of their local pub. The My Community advice service also offers important advice and support to local groups that are looking to take on their local.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
7. If the Government will ensure that the statutory maximum for a disabled facilities grant increases in line with inflation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
The Government have invested just over £1 billion in the disabled facilities grant since 2010. That has funded about 170,000 adaptations, helping thousands of disabled people to live safely at home.
Mary Glindon
I thank the Minister for that answer, but a report and survey by Muscular Dystrophy UK that will be launched in Parliament this week show that thousands of people are being forced into tens of thousands of pounds of debt because the disabled facilities grant has not been increased since 2008 and just does not cover the cost of adaptations. Will the Minister be kind enough to meet me and representatives of Muscular Dystrophy UK to look at the report and see what the Government can realistically do to help all the people who so desperately need adaptations?
Mr Jones
I am not sure about my diary for this week, but I undertake to meet the hon. Lady and representatives from Muscular Dystrophy UK on this important issue. The Government are providing £220 million for the disabled facilities grant this year, which is a 19% increase on 2014-15. Where the cost of adaptations exceeds £30,000, local authorities are in a position to provide top-up funding. I hear what the hon. Lady says. A spending review will take place in a few weeks and I will listen to her comments and those of other Members.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The disabled facilities grant has done wonderful work to support our disabled ex-service personnel. May I encourage the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that that continues for the rest of this Parliament?
Mr Jones
It is extremely important that the Government continue to support our armed forces personnel. In this country we hold dearly the work done by our armed forces, and as my hon. Friend says, it is extremely important that we continue to support them. I will take that into account, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in the up-and-coming spending review.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
17. Given the Government’s dismal record of selling off council housing and extending it to housing associations, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our remaining council housing stock has adequate disabled provision and access for those who need it?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is in reference to the disabled facilities grant, but I feel sure that the dexterity of the hon. Gentleman is boundless.
Mr Jones
You are right, Mr Speaker—it is a rather tenuous link but I will do my best. As I have said, the Government are providing significant funding to local authorities to provide disabled facilities grants, and there is no reason why they cannot use that for current council housing stock, or support housing associations with their stock.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
8. What steps his Department is taking to promote the building of affordable homes through the planning system.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
The national planning policy framework requires local planning authorities to meet their affordable housing needs for their area, and we are committed to delivering some 275,000 new affordable homes through to the end of this Parliament.
Justin Madders
In my constituency, over the past 18 months developer after developer has used the planning rules to get out of their obligations to build affordable homes, and more than 200 much needed affordable homes have been lost to my constituency during that period. When will the Minister get a grip and get developers to comply with their obligation to build affordable homes?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman might wish to take up with his local authority the issue of the power to negotiate locally. We are delivering affordable homes at the fastest rate in just over two decades, and in his constituency the number of homes going forward has increased by 124% since 2010. He should be thanking the Government for the work we have done to support that industry.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister assure me that councils are being encouraged to build more affordable homes for sale, because much more homeownership is the priority of the British people?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and one key focus of our manifesto this year was the starter homes project. I am proud that the Government will take forward the delivery of some 200,000 starter homes for first-time buyers at a 20% discount.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
But the increase in the definition of affordable homes is one reason why the Government can claim a massive increase in the building of such homes. In my constituency an affordable home requires people to be able to afford 80% of market rent, and people on average incomes cannot possibly afford that, even if they have a deposit.
Brandon Lewis
For good quality homes in the rental and ownership sectors the key is an increase in supply. I am pleased that in the hon. Lady’s constituency the number of starter homes has increased by 45% since 2010, and completions are up by 100% since 2010. We must build more homes—it is a shame that the previous Labour Government did not build them and that we started in 2010 with the lowest rate of house building since about 1923, which is what Labour left.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the rural starter homes programme will provide much appreciated assistance to young people so that they can afford to live in the areas where they grew up?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. The need for starter homes and affordable homes for people to purchase is as important in rural areas as it is in urban areas, and I am delighted that we will be able to take that project forward and see 200,000 starter homes delivered for first-time buyers across the country.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
12. What steps his Department has taken to stimulate the building of affordable housing; and what steps he is taking to help young people buy a home for the first time.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
We have already allocated £1 billion to our commitment to deliver a further 275,000 affordable homes by 2020. Since 2010, Government schemes such as Help to Buy and the right to buy have helped more than 230,000 people buy a home. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning said, we will build 200,000 starter homes exclusively for first-time buyers.
Steven Paterson
In fact, the right-to-buy scheme has raised private rents and cut social housing supply, but the Government want to force housing associations to sell homes during a housing shortage. Should the Government not look at the example from north of the border and the Scottish Government? Scrapping the right to buy has seen nearly 35,000 social rented houses built since 2007.
Greg Clark
The residents of Scotland have the same aspirations as the residents in all parts of the United Kingdom. They want to own their own home, and the Government are committed to giving them the chance to realise that aspiration. We are doing that by extending the right to buy, and it is a matter of regret that in Scotland they are going the other way.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What specific impact is the new homes bonus having on the building of homes across the country in order to meet local needs such as those of young people?
Greg Clark
First, the funds that come with the new homes bonus allow the financing of some of the infrastructure that is required—reasonably—when homes are built. Secondly, because of that, the plans that are coming forward for adoption by authorities have a significantly higher level of house building than was the case before the reforms were introduced.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
16. What assessment he has made of the reasons for changes in the level of rough sleeping since 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
One person without a home is one too many. That is why since 2010 we have invested more than £500 million in local authorities and the voluntary sector to prevent and tackle homelessness in their areas.
Neil Coyle
I was intrigued to hear the Minister mention earlier how dearly the Government hold those who serve in our armed forces. Ex-forces rough sleeping in London has risen elevenfold since 2010. Homes 4 Heroes does a brilliant job in my constituency supporting the ex-forces, but what specific measures does the Department have to prevent those leaving our armed forces from ending up on the streets, and to intervene when they are identified as rough sleeping?
Mr Jones
As I said earlier, this is an extremely important issue. Ministerial work is going on in relation to the military covenant, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is part of that ministerial group. We are also supporting local authorities with programmes to help them with rough sleepers, both to help rough sleepers on the street so that they do not spend a second night out—that has been especially useful in London—and to work with other housing groups so that rough sleeping does not become entrenched. We are helping people to get off the streets, especially those with mental health issues.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that statutory homelessness acceptances are now lower than they were under the previous Labour Government?
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
20. Homeless people are 13 times more likely to be victims of crime than the general public and are more likely to suffer from serious health problems. Will the Minister explain his plans for the future of the homelessness prevention grant?
Mr Jones
I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. As she has identified, the homelessness prevention grant has been powerful in that councils have been able to use it to stop people becoming homeless. She will be glad to know that we are considering the future of the grant in the context of the upcoming spending review.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
On 12 October, I and other Members will be taking part in sleep out night. The Government are rightly proud of the resources they put into such projects during the previous Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that to tackle rough sleeping he will be putting in money and continuing to support the Homelessness Change and No Second Night Out projects, which do a huge amount to prevent rough sleeping?
Mr Jones
It is always good to see the interest my hon. Friend has in this particularly important issue. I can assure him that I realise the value of the No Second Night Out programme. In London, two thirds of rough sleepers come off the streets after a single night out as a result of the programme. As I said in the previous answer, the Government are currently undertaking a spending review. We are considering the merits of this important scheme as a part of that.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Under Labour, rough sleeping went down by 75%. Since 2010, rough sleeping by young people in London alone has gone up by 123% and is about to get worse. Is the Minister so weak that he cannot persuade his Department for Work and Pensions colleagues that taking housing benefit away from 18 to 21-year-olds will have a catastrophic effect on vulnerable young people, or does he not care?
Mr Jones
I have said to the hon. Lady before that this Government have taken a different approach—a more honest and open approach—where we are actually calculating the number of rough sleepers properly. That did not happen when the Labour party were in government. On the welfare changes that the hon. Lady mentions, it is important to say that we have made it very clear that our proposals would protect vulnerable people in particular. This Government are on the side of people who want to get on and who aspire. We do not want young people to be trapped in dependency, as several generations have been hitherto. Obviously, the hon. Lady thinks that that is a good thing.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am surprised. Number 18, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
There is never any reason to be surprised in this place. We jog along as speedily as we can.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
18. What steps the Government are taking to reduce the difference in funding levels between urban and rural areas.
The Minister for Communities and Resilience (Mr Mark Francois)
Our reforms give all authorities substantial scope to increase revenues through promoting growth. I accept that most rural authorities face challenges in delivering services that other authorities do not. Consecutive local government finance settlements have delivered a steady reduction in the gap in spending power levels between urban and rural authorities.
Heidi Allen
Still surprised, but delighted to be here. I thank the Minister for that answer. Cambridgeshire has a creative way for local authorities to look to bridge the funding gap. The level of economic growth is such that private investors now want to invest in our infrastructure and help us to build affordable housing. Will the Secretary of State or Minister meet me and business leaders from Cambridge to hear our case, because we have an innovative solution?
Mr Francois
I will certainly consider a meeting. My hon. Friend talks about promoting economic growth. The business rates retention scheme provides a strong incentive to local councils to reap the rewards of economic growth. Councils now benefit from nearly £11 billion under the scheme, which should deliver a £10 billion boost to national GDP by 2020. If we meet, we can discuss these matters in more detail.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s announcement of the rural productivity plan over the summer. In particular, I praise the identification of improved local government as important to the economic regeneration of rural areas. Does the Minister agree that closing that gap—the Government have set out on a path to do that, albeit at an incredibly slow pace—is an important part of improving local government in rural areas?
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend has campaigned tirelessly on this issue for some time. As a result, he will know that the previous Government delivered a steady reduction in the so-called urban-rural gap in spending power levels. Consecutive settlements have helped to address the gap, and between 2012-13 and 2015-16 it has been reduced by £205 million. A great deal has been done, but there is still more to do.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
19. If he will make an assessment of the performance of the Planning Inspectorate in applying planning guidelines in recent appeals in Weedon Bec.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
Obviously, I cannot comment on specific planning appeals. However, the planning inspector will decide an appeal in accordance with the development plan and national planning policy, considering the evidence presented by all the parties in each specific case individually. The local decision is upheld in the majority of cases, with about two thirds of appeals being dismissed.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Although I understand that the Minister does not want to comment on the two planning appeals in Weedon, in which the same information was fed in only for there to be two different results, with one being allowed and one dismissed, will he let the Planning Inspectorate know that the people of Weedon in my constituency and the local council do not appreciate its varied decisions? They would also appreciate it if he could offer the Planning Inspectorate some strong guidance on implementing localism.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point on behalf of his community. There were two applications. I understand his point about their similarity, but every appeal has its own unique character, by definition. The planning inspectors need to consider them as individual cases. However, I appreciate his point about having consistent decisions.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
In Northamptonshire, the difference in decisions on appeal for very similar applications is remarkable. Is it not time we took a serious look at the Planning Inspectorate and did something about it?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is fighting hard for his constituents and planning is an emotive issue that people care passionately about. It shapes the future of the environments in which we live. Every planning application, no matter how silly it might seem, will have unique characteristics and will therefore potentially lead to different decisions.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
21. What steps his Department is taking to tackle rogue landlords.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
We have provided £6.7 million thus far to crack down on rogue landlords and have legislated to protect tenants from retaliatory eviction. I am determined to go further. We have recently published plans to blacklist and ban rogue landlords and to enable councils to impose civil penalties and to seek rent repayment orders in more circumstances.
Mike Freer
Does my hon. Friend agree that the approach of creating a register will simply create bureaucracy and drive up rents for tenants?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Last time the Opposition costed their plans for a national register, it was, I think, about £40 million a year, a cost that would fall on the tenants. More regulation in that sense is simply not the answer; it drives down supply and, as a result, quality for tenants.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I issued a written ministerial statement today to update the House on the main items of business undertaken by my Department over the summer. In the past eight weeks, we have introduced measures to boost house building and to support aspiring homeowners, including first-time buyers; our commitment to devolve powers from Whitehall to local people has prompted proposals across the country; and we have strengthened the planning system to tackle unauthorised development and ensure that all communities are treated equally. As the House has heard, the Home Secretary and I chaired a joint committee with local government to put in place the arrangements to settle Syrian refugees.
Caroline Lucas
Concerns have been raised that the changes to planning policy guidance for onshore wind will undermine the Government’s community energy strategy. Will the Secretary of State tell us precisely what assessment he has made of the impact of that announcement on proposed community energy schemes as well as those already in the system? Will he agree to meet community energy groups to hear their concerns?
Greg Clark
We have implemented faithfully and speedily a clear manifesto commitment that wind development should go ahead only with the consent of the local community. We have not hesitated in doing that, and it was one of the things we enacted over the summer.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
T4. Residents in Barrowford and Colne are keen to create neighbourhood plans for their area. Will my right hon. Friend say more about the support the Government are providing to local communities to ensure that their voices are heard in the completion of neighbourhood and local plans?
Greg Clark
Neighbourhood plans have been a huge success since they were introduced in the Localism Act 2011. They give local people more power to control the shape of development in their area but sometimes, across the country, local councils seem inclined to be tardy in giving the support that is required. In the forthcoming Bill, we will place a clearer responsibility on councils to support neighbourhoods in producing their plans.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This is the first Commons Question Time since our Labour leadership election and I am proud to speak for the party with more than 325,000 members behind me, more than double the Conservative membership.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about his ex-boss, the Chancellor, who describes the recent decline in home ownership as “a tragedy”. I have new House of Commons figures showing that home ownership has gone down each and every year in the last five years. What does the Secretary of State say to the millions of middle England, middle-income young people and families who desperately want the chance to own their own home, but have no hope of ever being able to afford the escalating costs?
Greg Clark
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench, but I have to say that I am very surprised to hear that line of questioning from him. In 2009, he said that
“home ownership has been dropping…And I’m not sure that’s such a bad thing.”
For him to suggest to the House that his view is now the opposite is a turnaround. Since the coalition Government were elected, the number of first-time buyers has doubled—it collapsed under the Government of whom he was a member—but we want to go further, which is why we have extended right to buy and introduced Help to Buy. It is also why we are introducing the starter homes for first-time buyers.
John Healey
What the Secretary of State is saying and what he is doing are simply not working. People need affordable homes to rent and to buy so that they get the chance of a decent start in life. In the last five years, with Conservative Ministers in charge, the number of people getting mortgages is down by over 10%. Last month, Shelter showed that families on the Chancellor’s so-called living wage will find it impossible and unaffordable to buy in eight out of 326 local authority areas across England. [Interruption.] Yes, eight of 326 local authority areas in England. Let me give a warning to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. They spent the last Parliament blaming Labour. That will not wash now. You have a track record of your own, and we Opposition Members will—week in, week out—expose your failings and hold this Government to account.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman is not going to run away from his own record, because he was a Housing Minister in the last Government. In the manifesto on which he was elected in 2005, it said that his Government would
“create a million more homeowners”.
That was the commitment given when he was the Housing Minister. During that Parliament, home ownership fell by a quarter of a million—it actually fell. Under this Government, the number of first-time buyers has doubled, and under Help to Buy the figures published at the end of last week show that 120,000 people have been helped. That is working people who are being helped by this Government to achieve their dream of having a home for the first time. He should be supporting that, and doing so around the country, rather than seeking to hark back to a failed policy over which he, I am afraid, presided.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
T5. The new Leader of the Opposition is, I believe, a keen advocate of rent control—unlike some of his colleagues. Does the Secretary of State agree that every time we see rent controls introduced, all that happens is a fall in the supply of housing, making it harder for people to find homes?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The reality is that the introduction of rent controls that the Labour party wants is another level of regulation. Evidence around the world shows that that drives prices up and supply down, which is bad for tenants. It is probably why the private rental sector dropped to just 9% of the market on the Labour Government’s watch. I am proud that we have rebuilt it to 19%, and it is important to see that grow further. What matters is the work we are doing to ensure that the quality of protection is there for tenants. It has been proven that rent controls do not work.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
T3. Can the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s continuing support for city deals and that he, together with colleagues in the Treasury, recognise the substantial opportunities offered to Midlothian and the Edinburgh city region by the excellent collaborative work of the region’s six constituent councils? Will he make a statement on the progress of this city deal and produce a timetable for delivery?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
The Government are indeed looking at the options for city deals, working with local representatives right across the country. I had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland only last week to talk about the progress being made. Where we can find the right deals that will deliver the right things for local areas, we are keen to pursue them in collaboration.
Mr Speaker
I call Luke Hall. He is not in the Chamber, so I call Chi Onwurah.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T7. As term starts, Newcastle will proudly welcome 57,000 university students. However, the Government have stopped compensating Newcastle City Council for the fact that students do not pay council tax, and have excluded student accommodation from the new homes bonus. Given that the council has already suffered over £100 million of cuts, will the Minister take into account the number of students and others who do not pay council tax when calculating what remains of the grant?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is good to see some representation from the north-east on the Opposition Back Benches, given that the Front Bench has very little, or none. [Interruption.] Ah! The hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) is on the Front Bench, so it has one.
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for her question. Newcastle has a spending power far in excess of those of many other local authorities, and certainly in excess of the national average. As she knows, we are undertaking a spending review and we will listen to what she is saying, but I must say that her part of the world does not do badly in comparison with many other parts of our country.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
South Somerset District Council recently changed its approach to housing land supply, which means that despite spending £3 million on developing a local plan, it is now, after only five months of operation, likely to be considered out of date under the national planning policy framework. In situations of this kind, when serious questions need to be asked about the competence and/or motivations of a planning authority, what extra help can the Government give local communities?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend has made a strong point about the importance of ensuring that local plans are up to date and appropriate. We do give support to local authorities, but I think we need to look at the information they are putting into their local plans to ensure that it is the core information that they need to have if they are to deliver good, fast and efficient local plans. I intend to say more about that later in the week.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
T8. Over the last Parliament, the local government funding settlement for Wirral Borough Council was reduced by 18% in real terms. If the Government cut that by a further 40% during the current Parliament, as they are considering doing, the council will have suffered a real-terms cut of 54% by 2020. How can it provide an adequate level of public services if its contribution from the Government is cut in half?
Mr Marcus Jones
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I think she should note that the spending power per dwelling in her constituency is £2,240, which is 7% above the national average. So Wirral is doing reasonably well in comparison with many other areas.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will welcome recent figures which show a 22% rise in the number of new home completions, but achieving the 200,000 homes per year that we need will require a revival of the small and medium-sized house builders whose number has been reduced by 75% over the last 30 years. What support can Ministers offer to ensure that that revival comes about?
Brandon Lewis
We agree that the growth of the small and medium-sized sector is an important part of delivering the housing that we need, and we want local authorities to do more to support it through local plans. In the Housing Bill, we intend to introduce a new fast-track process of establishing the principle of development for small sites. It will allow developers to obtain an earlier and more certain view from councils of whether sites are suitable for development, and will reduce their up-front costs.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
T9. What are the Government’s plans to extend to more than a one-off payment the use of funds from the international aid budget to help local authorities to assist refugees? Will authorities in Wales receive any moneys from that budget, now or in the future?
Greg Clark
As I said earlier, representatives of local government are participants on the ministerial committee that is putting those arrangements in place. We will take their advice to ensure that all the different costs that are incurred by authorities are sensibly addressed in the settlement that we provide.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Rebecca Thursby has highlighted to me the lack of available specialist housing for children with severe disabilities in Wiltshire, including her daughter. Will the Minister ensure that councils are made aware that they need to provide this housing? It is a requirement of the NPPF, and it needs to be properly incorporated in core strategies and cannot be left to building regulations.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend raises an important point and I know he has written to the Minister for Housing and Planning with a constituent case related to this matter. We want more self-builds and for people to have the freedom to build appropriate properties for their needs. I know that the representations my hon. Friend is making on behalf of his constituent and the letters he has already sent to the Department will receive appropriate consideration. I hope we can find a solution that will resolve his constituent’s concerns.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Since 2010 Tameside council has had to cut over £100 million from its budget and in the next two years it will have to take out a further £38 million. In Greater Manchester our local government is some of the most collaborative and innovative in the country, but what will have to go next is our citizens advice service, our adult services for people with special educational needs, our libraries and our civic buildings. Can the Government honestly say they that believe that the level of funding for local government in the north-west of England is adequate?
Mr Marcus Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The spending power per authority in the north-west is on average considerably above the national average. That said, we are aware of the challenges. The Manchester devolution deal, which is bringing together things like health and social care so that those services work more collaboratively together, will help local authorities to realise the savings they need and to produce better services for the local people they serve.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Government’s productivity plan said local plans should be radically shorter and simpler. Does the Minister agree that local plans can deliver? What is he doing to facilitate this?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend was instrumental in helping us transform the planning guidance, taking 1,000 pages down to 50 in the NPPF, and I am delighted that he has agreed to serve on a group that will help to simplify local plans, which have become far too long. I believe his first meeting with the group is taking place tomorrow.
Speaker’s Statement
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I have two short statements to make. The first is an announcement in relation to the management of the House.
On 22 January the House agreed to the recommendations of the Governance Committee chaired by Jack Straw. That included the appointment of a new post of director general of the House of Commons reporting to the Clerk of the House but with clearly delineated autonomous responsibilities for the delivery of services and with the task of chairing the Executive Committee. I am pleased to tell the House that, in line with the process of recruitment agreed by the House, Mr Ian Ailles has been appointed as the first director general of the House of Commons and will be joining the House service on 27 October. He brings a wealth of experience in the private and public sectors, notably in the travel industry, and I am sure will enable us to raise our game in the quality of services which we provide.
I also want to make a short statement that is relevant both to today’s debate and much more widely, and which reflects discussions I have had with the other occupants of the Chair.
Colleagues, a very large number of Members have put in to speak in today’s Second Reading debate—the last time I looked no fewer than 62 Members were seeking to catch the eye of the Chair. I shall try to accommodate as many as possible by setting a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I am afraid some will inevitably be disappointed.
This may be a good moment to remind Members, and particularly new Members, of the expectation that those called to speak must remain for at least the next two speeches and must return to hear the wind-ups. That is in addition to being here for the opening speeches. This is not just a matter of courtesy, although that is not to be disregarded: it is important to the quality of the debate in this House that Members listen, and respond, to each others’ contributions, rather than merely offering their own opinions in isolation.
Mr Speaker
It is always very reassuring to have a Government Whip say from a sedentary position, “Very sensible.” [Interruption.] Mr Barclay it is on the record; you can’t retract now, man.
Trade Union Bill
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have not selected the reasoned amendment.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I see two or more new faces on the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon, and I want to begin by congratulating my new opposite number, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), on her appointment. She is certainly no stranger to Westminster; when she was first elected, I was just out of university. I believe that today marks the first time that our paths have crossed at the Dispatch Box, but I have long admired her skills as a parliamentarian and I look forward to working with her in the months ahead. I wish her all the very best.
I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). We disagreed on many things, except our choice of haircut, but it was always a pleasure to debate with him and I am sure that he will continue to serve and represent his constituents with the passion and dedication that he repeatedly showed at the Dispatch Box.
I am also delighted to welcome the new Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), to the Front Bench. I congratulate him on his resounding victory in the election and wish him the very best of luck in his new role. He and I have two things in common, Mr Speaker. The first is that you will never catch either of us trying to eat a bacon sandwich. The second is that, like Members on both sides of the House, we both came into politics because we wanted to leave the world a better place than we found it. Obviously, you could put a rather large piece of cigarette paper between our ideas on how to achieve that, but his goal is the same as mine: a society that is fairer, more transparent and more just, in which the needs of the many are not outweighed by the wants of a few.
Sajid Javid
That is wishful thinking by the new Leader of the Opposition.
Since the industrial revolution, Britain’s trade unions have done much to help to deliver that fairer society that I was describing. They have helped to secure higher wages, safer workplaces and stronger employee rights. They have fought for social justice and campaigned for freedom and democracy, and they have supplied the House with some of its most eloquent and influential Members, including Leaders of the Opposition.
Unions helped my father when he first worked in the cotton mills. They helped him again when a whites-only policy threatened to block him from becoming a bus driver. Just as the workplace has evolved and improved since that time, so the trade unions and the laws that govern them have developed too. I hope that, in 2015, no one would argue for the return of the closed shop, the show-of-hands votes in dimly lit car parks or the wildcat walk-outs enforced by a handful of heavies. That is why the Labour Government repealed not a single piece of union legislation during their 13 years in power. Now it is time for Britain’s unions to take the next step, and the Bill will help to achieve just that.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State is pretending that the Bill is about democracy rather than being a vindictive attack on working people. If it is really about democracy and opening things up, why is he not lifting the ban on unions balloting online and in the workplace, which would be precisely the way to make a modern democracy work?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will see that democracy and accountability are at the heart of the Bill—[Interruption.] She will see that a lot more clearly as I make progress with my opening remarks.
Despite what people may have read in some reports, this Bill is not a declaration of war on the trade union movement. It is not an attempt to ban industrial action. It is not an attack on the rights of working people. It will not force strikers to seek police approval for their slogans or their tweets. It is not a reprise of Prime Minister Clement Attlee sending in troops to break up perfectly legal stoppages. It is simply the latest stage in the long journey of modernisation and reform. It will put power in the hands of the mass membership; bring much-needed sunlight to dark corners of the movement; and protect the rights of everyone in this country—those who are union members and those who are not, and those hard-working men and women who are hit hardest by industrial action.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
If this Bill was to be supported by the workers generally, some trade unions would already have given it support. This Bill is opposed by all those unions affiliated to the Labour movement and all those not affiliated to the Labour movement—even the Royal College of Nursing has said no to this Bill. It is a travesty and an intrusion upon the democracy of the workplace—get rid of it!
Sajid Javid
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has been able to get that off his chest. He will know, first, that the British people voted for this Bill at the general election and, secondly, that opinion poll after opinion poll has shown broad support for the measures we are discussing today.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
If this is such a fair and reasonable Bill, why does the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, Vince Cable, say that it is both “vindictive” and “unnecessary”?
Sajid Javid
There is a new Business Secretary in this Government and he is the one presenting this Bill.
Hon. Members from both sides of this House are, to some extent, insulated from the consequences of strike action. We are lucky enough to have generous travel expenses so that we can hire a car or a taxi when there is a transport strike. We have secure jobs, where we get paid whether we make it into the office or not. Even a Back Bencher is among the top 5% of UK earners, so we can afford to deal with the childcare costs that might come with a school closure or some disruption. But what about the low-paid restaurant staff who miss a day’s work and a day’s pay because of a stoppage called by a handful of transport workers? What about the self-employed builder who has to turn down a week-long job because a strike by teachers means that his kids cannot go to school? What about the single mother who cannot afford to lose a day’s pay by refusing to cross a picket line? Should she be subjected to abuse and harassment simply for going to work?
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks about women on low pay. Many of these women and men do not have bank accounts, yet he is still trying to get rid of check-off, which makes it easier for people to join trade unions. How is that helping people to defend their own rights?
Sajid Javid
There is absolutely no relationship between check-off and bank accounts. Anyone who is able to take advantage of check-off must have a bank account in order to receive their salary in the first place.
I also want to talk about the impact on taxpayers, who have to fund the salaries of public servants, only for those public servants to spend their time on trade union business. Do taxpayers not have a right at least to know what their taxes are being spent on? These are the people who are not represented in current trade union legislation, and by increasing transparency, fairness and democracy, they are the people that this Bill will protect. [Interruption.]
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
That is outrageous. Have a bit of dignity.
On this issue of consistency, if the trade unions are going to have to pay for the enhanced services of the certification officer, does the Secretary of State believe that Members of Parliament should pay for the costs of our regulator, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that the certification officer is the regulator for trade unions, and it is perfectly usual for the regulator to be paid for by those whom they regulate.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that modern unions are at their best when they work with employers to get more skills, better training, higher quality work and better paid jobs, and that strikes are deeply damaging to the interests of the employees as well as the employers?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of this Bill is partnership—partnership between trade unions and employers and other stakeholders. A great example of that can be seen at Toyota in Britain. It has not had one day of industrial action in 20 years, and that is because of the partnership that it rightly has with its trade union.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is giving the House the impression that London commuters would somehow be protected by his threshold. Is he aware that the recent industrial action on the tube would have passed those thresholds? He talks about partnership. Is it not the case that it is not the strikes and the ballots that are the problems, but the intransigent Mayor of London who is sitting behind him?
Sajid Javid
I am coming on to thresholds, but the hon. Gentleman’s point proves that this is not some kind of ban on industrial action. Strike action can rightly still take place where there is clear support from the membership of the union.
Let me move on to thresholds. The whole point of strikes is to cause disruption, but the impact of industrial action on ordinary people—often the very working people whom unions were created to support—is such that it should ever be used only as a last resort. It should be taken only after the explicit backing of a majority of members. That is why this Bill sets a minimum turnout of 50% for industrial action ballots. If 1,000 union members are being asked to participate in a strike, at least 500 of them must vote for the ballot to be valid.
Sajid Javid
I will give way in a moment. In addition, strikes in certain public services will need the support of 40% of those eligible to vote. In our hypothetical 1,000-strong union, a successful ballot will require at least 500 votes to be cast with at least 400 of those being in favour.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Despite the Secretary of State’s fine words about the trade union movement at the beginning, does he not realise that what he is saying about what this Tory Government are doing is a continuous Tory vendetta against the trade union movement? He should be thoroughly ashamed that he is bringing in this Bill and, just as in 1927, it will be a future Labour Government who will ensure that this rubbish is destroyed and that trade unions are given back their basic freedoms.
Sajid Javid
There was a time when Labour used to be the party of working people. We have seen evidence already this afternoon that it has given up on ordinary, hard-working people.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen the words of Rob Williams from the National Shop Stewards Network? He said:
“The message must be simple—Cameron, we are going to take you down. If this goes into law, we want mass co-ordinated strike action.”
Does that further underline the importance of getting this Bill into place?
Sajid Javid
What that highlights is that, sadly, there are some trade union leaders who do not care about their members. They care about their own narrow interests and not the interests of their members or other hard-working people.
Sajid Javid
I will give way in a moment. I also wish to highlight the additional requirement for ballots of staff in six key sectors: the health service, the fire service, border security and nuclear decommissioning—because of the obvious risks to public safety and security—and education and transport. A ballot is required because of the massive disproportionate disruption that stoppages in those areas can cause.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
What is the appropriate word to describe it when a person who feels that they have been dealt with unjustly seeks to withdraw their labour and is forced to work against their will?
Sajid Javid
I have already addressed the hon. Gentleman’s concern. This is not a ban on strike action. This is about ensuring that our rules are modern and right and fit for today’s workplace.
We have consulted on which occupations within those sectors should be subject to the additional 40% support threshold. The consultation closed last week and we are now reviewing the results. We will publish the Government’s response and details of the scope of the 40% threshold by the time the Bill is in Committee in the other place. As I have said, these measures will not make strikes illegal or impossible. If union leaders can make a genuine and compelling case to their members, they will have no problem securing the votes required. I believe that the vast majority of industrial action is unfortunate and unnecessary, but it is important that workers are able to go on strike. If union members truly want to do so, I will not stand in their way.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
If the rules for thresholds set out in the Bill were applied to the election of MPs, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would be an MP?
Sajid Javid
First, as I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, in a general election the electorate do not face a binary choice. Secondly, everyone affected by the result of a general election has the right to vote. When a union votes on industrial action, only its members have the right to vote. Therefore, it is absolutely right that there should be a clear, effective mandate.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about having a mandate for this Bill. His party was wholly rejected in Scotland, so why does he not enter discussions with the Scottish Government to devolve trade union law to the Scottish Parliament?
Sajid Javid
First, as the hon. Gentleman will know, employment law and industrial relations are reserved matters. Secondly, as he is no doubt aware, the Conservative party won a majority at the United Kingdom general election.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was absolutely right to have a consultation on the additional 40% hurdle. He has talked about it in reference to the emergency services and other important services, but does he not agree that there is another issue: if we compare changes in strike action in the public and private sectors since the end of the last century, we see that over that 15-year period the number of strike days in the private sector has halved, but in the public sector the number has doubled?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes an excellent point. That goes to the heart of the Bill and why we need these changes.
Sajid Javid
I will give way in a moment, but first I will make some progress, because many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
It is also important that any industrial action reflects the current will of union members. As things stand, that is not always the case. Union leaders can secure a mandate for industrial action and then keep using it for as long as they please. For example, in October 2013 the NASUWT justified a walk-out by citing a mandate acquired in November 2011, almost two years earlier. That is hardly a constructive approach to industrial relations.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the reason the Opposition object to the Bill is that when people choose to go on strike they get only a tiny bit of strike pay, not their proper pay? They have responsibilities and families to support, so nobody goes on strike just for the hell of it; they do so because they need to.
Sajid Javid
I think that the hon. Lady will therefore agree with the changes we are proposing today. She is right that strikes should always be a last resort—I think that is the point she is making. If union members wish to take strike action, they will vote for it and meet the proposed thresholds.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The question of mandates was raised a few moments ago. Is the Secretary of State aware that when over 1,000 Londoners were polled by YouGov last month, 53% approved of these proposals and only 26% disapproved? Even among Labour voters the measures were approved of by 40 to 38.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend shows just how much support there is among the general public for these reforms.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems with the unions using historical mandates is that, because time has elapsed, many of the employees who voted for strike action may have retired or moved employment in the meantime?
Sajid Javid
That is exactly the point I am coming on to.
When old mandates are used, it is not fair on union members. As my hon. Friend said, a two-year-old mandate is unlikely to reflect the latest negotiations and would fail to reflect changes in the workforce. To ensure that any industrial action is based on a current mandate from current members, the Bill provides a four-month validity period after a ballot result is announced.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend not showing with this legislation, once again, that the Conservative Government are standing up for people who want to work and against bullies who want to stop them? That is what fundamentally underlies his approach?
Sajid Javid
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting how the Bill protects the rights of working people across the country when they are affected by strike action that has no proper mandate.
Sajid Javid
I must plough on, but I will give way later.
The Bill provides that voting papers sent to union members and employers will state the details of the trade dispute, exactly what type of industrial action is proposed, and an indication of the time period in which that action will take place. This will ensure that members know exactly what they are voting for or against and allow them to make an informed decision.
One of the valuable roles performed by unions over the years has been to defend workers from abuse, bullying and harassment at the hands of managers. There is no place for such behaviour in the modern workplace, and I applaud anyone who stands up against it. But bosses are not the only culprits. The independent Carr report contained shocking accounts of appalling bullying and harassment directed at non-strikers by trade union members. There were threats that included details of where workers’ children go to school, and abusive text messages warning, “We know where you live.” Photographs of non-strikers were posted online in a bid to shame them. Workers who had failed to support industrial action reported being punished by colleagues who deliberately saddled them with antisocial shift patterns or isolated them in the workplace.
It is not acceptable for managers to harass and abuse trade union members who take lawful industrial action. Nor is it acceptable for strikers to treat those who choose to work in the same way. While such abuses are doubtless the actions of a tiny minority of trade unionists, they should never be allowed to happen without consequences. The Bill makes it clear that such intimidation has no place in the modern workplace.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Is it not the case that this is just another instance of the Tory party no longer being on the side of people’s rights? There are no more rights. There is no longer a right to social security, legal aid or access to employment tribunals. The Conservative party is becoming much more authoritarian and Labour Members do not like it. It is no longer the party of rights. It used to have a fine tradition of rights, but that is disappearing.
Sajid Javid
It is a case of a one nation Government standing up for all working people across the country.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Why does the Minister think that since 2010 seven times as many strike days have been lost in the public sector as in the private sector, despite the fact that more people work in the private sector?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend highlights an important point. It reflects the fact that, unfortunately, public sector unions seem to have more leaders who do not want to represent the views of their members and will take strike action without a full and proper mandate.
Sajid Javid
I must move on.
The code of practice on picketing, which is already followed without difficulty by many unions, requires the appointment of a picket supervisor. The Bill will make that a statutory obligation. It does not add any new requirement that is not already in the code. The supervisor must either attend the picket line or be readily contactable by the union and the police and able to attend at short notice, and he or she must wear an armband or other means to identify them in order to ensure that picketing is peaceful and lawful.
In addition, we consulted over the summer on other measures to tackle wider intimidation. The consultation closed last Wednesday and we are considering whether the Bill should contain further provisions. We will set out our views on that consultation in due course.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
If the Secretary of State is so concerned about being even-handed in how he modernises strike law, why has he ruled out modernising how trade unions communicate and how strike ballots are sent out? Why is he focusing only on more punitive measures?
Sajid Javid
I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to e-balloting, but I am concerned about fraud and that the identities of people voting in a secret ballot may be revealed. In fact, the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, which looked at the use of digital apparatus in elections, also shared those concerns. I do not think it would have been appropriate to suggest such changes.
Let me turn to political funds. The introduction of ballot thresholds will help ensure that unions reflect the will of their whole membership and that the views of every member count. Another way we are going to achieve that is through changes to the way in which political funds are managed.
Ian Lavery
The Secretary of State discounts e-balloting because of potential fraud. How about considering an amendment to the Bill with regards to balloting in the workplace, where there cannot be any fraud whatsoever? It will be democratised and there will be a huge turnout on every occasion, which is surely what the Secretary of State is seeking to implement.
Sajid Javid
I have clearly set out my concerns and we propose to make no change to the way in which ballots are carried out.
On political funds, first we will increase transparency on the way in which political funds are spent, helping members to make an informed decision about whether or not they want to contribute. The Bill places a duty on unions to report in greater detail on what annual expenditure over £2,000 is useful, helping members decide whether or not they want to pay into the fund. After all, freedom to choose without having all the facts is no freedom at all.
Secondly, unions will need to obtain the active consent of members to deduct a political levy. At present, members can, in theory, opt out, although many unions do not even tell new members that the political levy exists, let alone about them having to pay for it.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Labour is in hock to and funded by the unions—[Interruption.] That is why Labour Members are making howls of protest. Is not it a fundamental right that people’s pay packets should not be interfered with, without them knowing exactly where the money and the dues are going? That is what this Bill seeks to achieve.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That money belongs to hard-working people. They should know exactly what is being done with it and that is at the heart of the proposal. In fact, in Northern Ireland, members have had an active choice for almost 90 years and their unions are still perfectly able to operate and to organise. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Prison Officers Association still have more than four fifths of their members choosing to opt in. All we are asking is for a simple tick box on the same membership forms in England, Scotland and Wales.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
My union, Community, has used the political fund to challenge Governments of all colours and even took the last Labour Government to the European Court and won on behalf of its members. Does the Secretary of State accept that the political fund is not just about putting money into political parties, but about holding the Government of the day to account?
Sajid Javid
I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with the changes, because they support union members and will introduce more transparency. They will still allow the unions to raise the funds, but they will just have to be more open about how they do so and what they do with them.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said earlier that when unions and employers work together, results are achieved. That being the case, why does the Secretary of State want to overrule agreements made freely between unions and public sector employees about the appropriate amount of time that should be spent on union duties?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman has moved on to an issue that I will cover later in my remarks.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a simple matter of transparency? If people want to give money to the Labour party as union members, they should choose to do so. Indeed, if they do not actually choose to do so, the danger is that the unions are arguably guilty of mis-selling, because people do not know what they are buying when they join up for membership of a trade union.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend puts it very eloquently. This is an issue of transparency. It is about ensuring that when people, rightly, give money to any political party, they know that they are doing so and do it with their eyes wide open.
Ian Lavery
I thank the Secretary of State for giving away again. If this is about transparency, what about the hedge funds and big business, which donate fortunes to the Conservative party? Will legislation be put in place covering the need to ask shareholders and the workforce whether such donations can be made? That’s transparency.
Sajid Javid
I think the hon. Gentleman actually agrees with the rules that apply to businesses. When businesses make a political donation to whatever party, they rightly have to declare it and must be open and transparent. They often need the votes of their shareholders. These rules are absolutely consistent with that. The hon. Gentleman is surely not saying that there should be no transparency here.
Dawn Butler
The Secretary of State is being very generous with his time. On the point of businesses being open and transparent, should 40% of shareholders have to agree before a business can donate to a political party?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that businesses or individuals have to declare it when they make a donation. It has to be transparent. All businesses have to declare their donations and will often have to get the permission of their shareholders. In public companies, those shareholders will receive a vote. These changes are entirely consistent with that. We are saying that if someone is a union member, they should know that some of their money is going towards political purposes. It should be open and transparent. That is not the case in England, Scotland and Wales. It is the case in Northern Ireland. If it works in Northern Ireland, it can work in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Turning to check-off, as the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has announced, a proposed amendment to the Bill will seek to end the practice by which union subscriptions are processed through payroll in public sector organisations. The so-called check-off system was created in a time before direct debits existed and serves no purpose in the modern workplace. It has already been abolished across Whitehall. The amendment will extend this modernising step to the rest of the taxpayer-funded workforce.
I respect Britain’s working men and women. I believe that they are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they wish to support their union’s political activity and they are perfectly capable of paying their union subscriptions themselves. To suggest otherwise is to say that Britain’s union members are too lazy to set up a direct debit or too stupid to make a decision about politics. That is patronising in the extreme.
In the past few weeks, the Labour party has shown that it is possible actively to recruit hundreds of thousands of members to a support a cause and that it is possible to get hard-working men and women to hand over their hard-earned money to back an idea that they believe in. Not one of Labour’s new members signed up by mistake because they failed to tick a box. Not one of the registered supporters was required to pay their £3 through their employer’s payroll. Every new recruit to the Labour party made an active decision to participate. If the party born of the unions can achieve that, surely the unions themselves can do the same.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is pursuing auto-enrolment for contributions to pension funds?
Sajid Javid
This is an issue about check-off, not auto-enrolment. Several Whitehall Departments have already begun the process to remove check-off, and now we will apply that process to all parts of the public sector.
On facility time, the Government have a moral duty to ensure that taxpayers get maximum value for money out of every penny they provide the Exchequer. With that in mind, it is hard to justify paying a public servant to do a vital job, only for them to spend their day working for another employer. Yet this is exactly what is happening in the public sector today.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Before I came to this place, I was a public sector worker—a home help—and an elected trade union official for a public service, after more than 200,000 members voted for me, and I can tell the Secretary of State that the work I did saved my local authority 10 times what I was paid in facility time. Does he agree that the Bill is anti-business and anti-working practice and that most employers that have trade unions recognise their value?
Sajid Javid
I wholeheartedly disagree with the hon. Lady. There is nothing wrong with an employee doing union work, but it should be open and transparent.
Sajid Javid
Then this will make it even more transparent. If the hon. Lady looks at the changes, she should be able to agree with them.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Is it not an outrage that union officials can conduct union business on public time? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the first year of the Government’s controls on facility time in the civil service has seen a saving of £17 million?
Sajid Javid
I should emphasise that point: we are saving £17 million a year because of the transparency we have introduced into the civil service. It will no doubt have a similar impact on the rest of the public sector.
There are nurses, teachers and other public servants being paid a salary by the taxpayer while working for their union under the banner of facility time. There is no transparency around how much time they spend on union work and no controls in place to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. It is a situation that most ordinary Britons, including many dedicated public servants I have spoken to, find absolutely baffling. That is why civil service Departments are already required to publish information about the use of facility time by their staff. The Bill allows the Government to make regulations extending that to all public sector employers. It will include information about an employer’s spending on trade union duties and activities and about how many of its union representatives spend a specified percentage of their time on their union role. We have already made considerable savings for the taxpayer by requiring Departments to publish this information, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). However, if transparency alone does not lead to further savings, the Bill also grants Ministers the power to set a cap on the time and money spent on facility time.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State agree with one of his own donors, JCB, which has people in facility full-time to encourage positive industrial relations? If it is good enough for the private sector, surely it is good enough for our public sector.
Sajid Javid
It is good enough for all sectors. There is nothing wrong with facility time—the Bill is clear about that—but it should be open and transparent, and the current rules do not ensure that.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Why have the Government not consulted the devolved Administrations and local authorities across the UK about facility time? They would tell him about its benefits, because these employers and organisations see the benefits of facility time.
Sajid Javid
I am a bit baffled by the hon. Gentleman’s question because there are three consultations that relate to the Bill. The main consultation is a nine-week consultation and it is open to every stakeholder in the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland.
Finally, the Bill enhances the role of the certification officer—a role that has served workers, unions and employers well over the past 40 years. It equips the certification officer with appropriate new powers for a modern regulator, such as allowing investigations to begin based on information from a variety of sources, without having to wait for specific complaints from union members.
For the first time, the certification officer will have the ability to impose financial penalties on unions that do not comply with statutory requirements—the very requirements that Parliament has deemed necessary. The Bill passes the cost of that regulation on to the unions. That is entirely in line with modern best practice. It is why banks fund the Financial Conduct Authority and why utility regulators are paid for by utility firms.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I understand what he is trying to do with the Bill, but it makes some of us rather uneasy. That is true of the provisions on the certification officer who, hitherto, has been seen by both sides—I speak as someone who was a partner in a law firm with 1,000 employees, so I do know a bit about this—as a neutral arbiter or referee. The Bill politicises the role and, to the trade union side, appears to put the certification officer on one side of the divide, rather than keeping them as a neutral arbiter.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman should be assured that if that were the case, we would not have brought these changes forward. The certification officer’s role remains that of a neutral regulator, independent of Government—that will not change. What will change is the transparency, some of the powers that the officer has to carry out their duties and the way the officer is paid for. Just like other regulators, they will be paid for by the people they regulate and be independent.
In conclusion, in June 1966, Prime Minister Harold Wilson stood at this Dispatch Box and called union leaders of the day
“politically motivated men who…failed to secure acceptance of their views by the British electorate, but who are…forcing great hardship on the members of the union and their families, and endangering the security of the industry and the economic welfare of the nation.”—[Official Report, 20 June 1966; Vol. 730, c. 42-43.]
Since then, successive reforms have helped to modernise the union movement. Now, it is time to take the next step: to embrace the transparency that modern society demands of business and politics; to embrace the democracy that is at the heart of what makes Britain great; and to focus on the needs and demands of union members, rather than the views and ambitions of union leaders.
In our manifesto, we pledged to deliver further union reforms, and at the general election, that manifesto secured the clear acceptance of the British people. This is not about the Government versus the unions or the workers versus the bosses. It is about creating a modern legislative framework for modern industrial relations; about making unions partners in the workplace; and about ensuring that a handful of militants cannot force great hardship on their members and on the public, or endanger the economic welfare of the nation.
I started today by talking about how unions were instrumental in consigning the dark satanic mills to the history books, but the workplace of the 21st century is very different from that of the 18th century. The way in which union members work has changed. Now, it is time for the way in which trade unions work to change too. The Bill will make that change happen, and I commend it to the House.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, but not before we hear a point of order from Mr Jake Berry.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before we proceed with this important debate, I wonder whether you will clarify the rules regarding Members declaring their interests. There have been many interventions by Members who have received significant donations from or are paid by trade unions. As the debate proceeds, people who are watching our proceedings will want to know the reason why people are taking part.
Mr Speaker
There should be no requirement for clarification because the hon. Gentleman is an experienced denizen of this House. He will know that there is an opportunity to declare in the register any relevant interests, and that it is the responsibility of each Member to declare in the way that he or she thinks is necessary for the House to be informed.
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Angela Eagle.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm himself. I feel sure that this will be a separate point of order, as no further point of order is required. On that assumption, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.
Clive Efford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Since reference has been made to the funding of political parties, should Government Members who have a shareholding in a hedge fund or a company that has supplied resources to the Conservative party also make a declaration?
Mr Speaker
I fear that an undesirable trend has been started by the hon. Gentleman, no doubt with great innocence of public purpose, but we will not persist further. I stand by what I have said: the opportunity exists to make a declaration in the register, and Members must declare as they think appropriate, if and when they come to speak in the Chamber. There is nothing new about that; it is well established. I call Angela Eagle.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Third time lucky, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State for his gracious welcome, and especially for the timing of today’s Second Reading debate on this Bill, which he has arranged for maximum convenience. I hope he will continue to be so accommodating as we go forward and I oppose him from the Dispatch Box.
Let me begin by drawing the attention of the House to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests which, in the interests of transparency, I declared earlier than was technically necessary. I was especially pleased to win the nominations of Unison, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Communication Workers Union, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and the recommendation of Unite in the recent contest to be deputy leader of the Labour party—hon. Members can see where that got me. As the register shows, my campaign was supported by donations in cash and kind from some of the unions affiliated to the Labour party.
I also want to make a second declaration: I am a lifelong and proud trade unionist. I believe in social partnership at work, and that the right of trade unions to exist and represent their members at work is a key liberty in any democracy. I am dismayed that we have a Government who believe in attacking trade unions, rather than working with them in the spirit of social partnership to improve economic efficiency and productivity in our country.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend will know that in recent years, the average trade unionist has been on strike for one day in 15 years. In sharp contrast, the export of goods last month was down to its lowest level since 2010. Does she agree that the focus should be on collaboration across industry and trade unions to raise productivity and wages, whereas the Bill will get people on the streets and force conflict?
Dawn Butler
May I declare that I am a proud trade unionist and was a full-time trade union official for more than 10 years? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill’s real agenda is to stop public sector workers speaking out against this Government’s attacks on their pay and conditions?
Ms Eagle
It is impossible not to agree with my hon. Friend, and it saddens me beyond words that we are here today dealing with the most significant sustained and partisan attack on 6 million trade union members and their workplace organisations that we have seen in this country in the past 30 years. With the number of days lost to strike action down 90% in the past 20 years, there is no need whatsoever to employ the law in this draconian way.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. She says, rightly, that the number of days lost to strikes in the UK is at its lowest for 20 years. It is even more significant than that: we lose fewer days to strike action in the UK today than we did during the second world war. There is no problem here that needs fixing.
John Redwood
Does the hon. Lady have a message for people in London trying to get to work or students trying to get to schools or colleges on the tube? Does she think each one of those strikes was right and necessary, and what is her advice to the travelling public?
Ms Eagle
My message is that the Mayor should start doing his job and help to respond to the dispute.
There is no necessity to employ the law in this draconian way, especially when this country already has the most restrictive trade union laws in Europe. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the trade group for the human resources sector, has criticised the Bill as an “outdated response” to today’s challenges, commenting that the
“Government proposals seem to be targeting yesterday’s problem instead of addressing the reality of modern workplaces”.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does the hon. Lady not find it amazing that 99% of the time the Conservatives go on about regulation and red tape in business and the workplace? What are they trying to do now but introduce regulation and red tape unseen in Germany, Norway or other major economies of Europe? This is just a symptom of low-pay Britain.
Rob Marris
I agree with my hon. Friend that trade unions are central to democracy and that we already have some of the most restrictive trade union legislation in the world—and the Bill will make it worse. Does she agree that the Government’s proposals are a threat to the security of our country because they threaten democracy?
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I declare my interests: I am sponsored by trade unions—the cleanest money in British politics and far cleaner than on the other side of the House. Does my hon. Friend agree that on Sky News yesterday the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) described elements of the Bill as like something out of Franco’s dictatorship?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I am a proud member of Unite the union and I have been since the miners’ strike. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is remarkable that 77% of the public believe that trade unions defend important aspects of workers’ rights and that we need them?
Ms Eagle
It is wise to remember that trade unions defend not only their own members. Over the years, trade unions have created a process that has given us holidays, weekends and reasonable working hours. It is right that the benefits that trade unions bring to our society are recognised and extended to those who are not members of trade unions but happen to be at work. Any attack on those rights that weakens those powers threatens the progress made over many years in democracy at work.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the CIPD, and it is not only the usual suspects who oppose this Bill—there are some unlikely bedfellows because the Bill goes beyond party politics. As we have heard, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) called it redolent of Franco’s Spain. The Secretary of State pooh-poohed Vince Cable, the former Business Secretary, for calling it “vindictive”. A letter has been signed by 100 academics, mostly from business schools which are not usually seen as hotbeds of radicalism in our country. Will independent-minded Conservatives join us and our new leader in the Lobby tonight to oppose this draconian legislation?
David Rutley
I congratulate the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) on her promotion. She works hard in the north-west.
It is interesting to note that the new shadow Chancellor has told trade unionists:
“We will support all demonstrations in Parliament or on the picket line”—
against the Bill—
“We will be with you at every stage. It is not often you have heard that from a Labour MP but you are hearing it now.”
Does the shadow Business Secretary agree with that?
Ms Eagle
I agree with the right to demonstrate. I thought we were living in a free country.
The Bill is draconian, vindictive and counterproductive. It is:
“very provocative, highly ideological and has no evidence base at all”.
Those are not my words; they are the words of Vince Cable, the right hon. Gentleman’s predecessor as Business Secretary in the previous Government. He has a very revealing insight into the mindset of the Conservative party, the people he was in coalition with for five years, which has concocted the Bill.
“When we were in government, the Tories were constantly pressing for more aggressive trade union legislation of the type we see…They see the trade unions and the Labour party as the enemy. The question then is how do you weaken them? That is their starting point.”
This is the prism through which we have to see the proposals before us today. Forget the blabber from the Secretary of State; this is the prism through which we have to judge these proposals.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her elevation.
The Bill comes straight out of the right-wing playbook of the American Legislative Exchange Council. As Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker did exactly the same thing in 2011 and put industrial relations back in that state for a generation. Does my hon. Friend not agree?
Ms Eagle
More than that, I think the slightly shifty looks on the faces of many Government Members demonstrate that they know they have been found out. They have been rumbled.
It is abundantly clear that, whatever protestations we may have to the contrary, Vince Cable’s analysis explains what is really going on with this disgraceful piece of proposed legislation. Perhaps that is why so few people will defend it. Even Government Ministers will not defend it in public, as this tweet from “Murnaghan” revealed on Sunday:
“We asked the Government and the @Conservatives for an interview with any Minister/MP to defend the Trade Union Bill. No one was available.”
They do not want to be questioned about it. Like all authoritarians, they just want do it as quickly as possible and brook no dissent.
The right to be part of a trade union to campaign for protection at work is a fundamental socioeconomic right. It is enshrined in the UN’s universal declaration of human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights.
Ms Eagle
No. I have given way a lot of times and I am in the middle of the peroration.
Before I was so rudely interrupted, I was just about to say that the Bill rides roughshod over that right. It threatens the basic options that those at work have to safeguard their pay and conditions by standing together to win improvements. Liberty, Amnesty and the British Institute of Human Rights have all said that the Bill’s purpose is to
“undermine the rights of all working people”
and amounts to a
“major attack on civil liberties in the UK.”
That warning should not be dismissed lightly by the Conservative party. Workers’ rights to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association are all undermined by the Bill. For example, the requirement forcing workers to disclose media comments to the authorities a week in advance or face a fine and the requirement under clause 9 for picket supervisors to register with the police and wear identifying badges are a dangerous attack on basic liberties that would not be tolerated by the Conservative party if they were imposed on any other section of society.
Remember that it is now known that thousands of people in the building trade have had their livelihoods taken away and their lives ruined by illegal employer blacklisting, a scandal that this Government have failed either to pursue or remedy. The Bill has been criticised for being OTT, with parts of it resembling the dictatorship of General Franco. Those are not my words, either, but the words of that noted Marxist agitator, the Conservative right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
That sinister intent needs to be added to other attempts by the Government to curb dissent in our country today. They have restricted access to justice by imposing fees to access the courts, which are causing the innocent to plead guilty. They want to scrap the Human Rights Act, which safeguards our basic freedoms. Their commitment to transparency in Government is in tatters with their plans to limit freedom of information powers. They have slashed legal aid and introduced employment tribunal fees, which deny women the chance to sue for equal pay or defend themselves against sexual harassment. They have limited the scope for judicial review and used their gagging law to bully charities into silence at the election, and now they are trying to silence the trade union voice through a tax on the existence of political funds, which finance general non-party political campaigning as well as the Labour party.
This is another gagging Bill, and those of us who care for the health of our democracy and civil society are united in opposing it. Clauses 2 and 3 are deliberately designed to undermine the bargaining power of trade unions by requiring minimum turnouts, thresholds and support before a strike ballot is valid. The new proposals demand a mandate for unions that breaks the democratic conventions of our society by counting votes not cast as essentially no votes.
More than half of the Cabinet would not have met that arbitrary threshold had it applied to their election to this House in May. Why do the Government have different standards for democracy and trade unions than anywhere else in our society? Clause 3 ensures that the 40% level of support restriction will apply to a much bigger list of sectors than the internationally recognised definition of “essential services” and, ominously, allows sectors to be added by secondary legislation that is as yet unpublished. From listening to the Secretary of State, it appears that the Government do not intend to publish it until the Bill is in the Lords.
If the Government are so worried about participation in ballots, why do they not allow e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, which are used routinely by many organisations? Clauses 4 to 6 might more usefully be described as the clauses that smother unions in “blue tape” and the hypocrisy of the Business Secretary in this respect is staggering. In July, he launched his drive to cut red tape, yet when it comes to unions he is increasing the powers of the certification officer and deliberately placing additional information and reporting burdens on unions. Not content with doing that, the Government, through clauses 12 and 13, are reducing the ability of trade union officials to do their jobs with the introduction of new powers to restrict facility time.
It is not hard to come to the conclusion that these proposals have been written to be as unworkable and difficult to comply with as possible. They also create many more opportunities for ballots to be challenged by employers for minor technical reasons. Again, it is clear that the increased risk of employer challenge is an integral part of the Government’s intentions.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recall that throughout the 1980s the working people of this country were lectured about giving managers the right to manage? Management in this country has agreed with trade unions at a local level who should have facility time and what they should do with it. Why should the Government have to intervene to destroy that partnership, which has worked for the benefit of all concerned?
Ms Eagle
Rather like Don Quixote, they are tilting at windmills, and legislating for an absurd caricature of the reality of industrial relations up and down the country, for partisan purposes. That is why we oppose the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 extend the notice requirements for any industrial actions and restrict the effect of any ballot for strike action to four months. These clauses are designed to narrow the effectiveness of any industrial action, even if it has reached the much higher requirements of turnout and support required for clauses 2 and 3. There is no sign of any evidence that could justify these changes and no sign of a clamour for employers to change the existing system. Indeed, these changes may intensify industrial dispute during the four-month period, and make things worse.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me—unlike the Secretary of State—to intervene. Everyone who heard the Secretary of State’s contribution will know that he cited the example of Northern Ireland, stating that what was good enough for Northern Ireland was good enough for the rest of the country. In particular regard to the political fund, trade union members in Northern Ireland have had to opt in, and that has been the case for over 60 years. Will the hon. Lady clarify what percentage of trade union members in Northern Ireland have opted in to the political fund?
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady. I have enormous regard for her and I congratulate her most sincerely on her appointment to the shadow Front Bench. The answer to the question—I am sure it must have slipped her mind, as she always does her homework before contributing to debates—is 39%. Let me add that it could be to do with the fact that the Labour party never fielded candidates in Northern Ireland. Perhaps under the new leadership, the party might think of rivalling its buddies in Sinn Féin.
Ms Eagle
We will have to have a chat about whether the Labour party should organise in Northern Ireland. It is a long-standing issue within our party. I would be more than happy to talk to the hon. Lady about that, but I suspect Madam Deputy Speaker would stop me from doing so over the Dispatch Box.
We all know that this Government—barely with a majority—increasingly behave in a grossly partisan way, whether it is through individual electoral registration designed to disfranchise voters, by introducing English votes for English laws, or now by making changes to party funding to try to hobble the main Opposition.
Chris Philp
That is something I thought I would be unable to do; I am grateful that my persistence has paid off. The motivation behind this Bill has nothing to do with the things that the hon. Lady has just mentioned; it is to do with protecting and helping ordinary hard-working people to go about their day-to-day lives and their work unimpeded by strike action, which sometimes has turnouts as low as 16%. It is reasonable to protect them, and I ask the hon. Lady to support that
Ms Eagle
Disillusion has set in very quickly, I am afraid, with the hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that I am a long-standing member of a trade union, so I know many trade unionists, and I know that very few of them would contemplate being silly enough to have industrial action with very low turnouts and very little support, because that simply does not work.
The Prime Minister used to say he wanted to reform party funding and would limit donations from all sources. Now, however, instead of addressing the big money in politics—and the big issues that are causing disillusionment from politics generally—with millionaire hedge-fund donors being treated to lunches and dinners with the Cabinet, this Government are, outrageously, focusing on curbing only trade union donations. There is an important issue about big money in politics, but it needs to be dealt with on a cross-party basis.
Ms Eagle
No.
As I was saying, that issue needs to be dealt with on a cross-party basis to change our political system fairly, and not just with the partisan interests of the Tory party in mind.
As the Regulatory Policy Committee has noted, these proposals for changes are rushed, and have had nowhere near the level of consultation that they deserve. The committee has described the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. There are serious questions about whether this Bill is compatible with the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom, as a member of the International Labour Organisation. The ILO has already criticised the UK on a number of occasions for its constraints on the right to strike, and the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has called for more, not less, trade union freedom in Britain.
Ms Eagle
I am winding up now.
Given the serious questions about its effect on fundamental rights, the Bill may be open to legal challenge on a number of fronts, including its impact on the devolution settlements, because it covers areas such as health and education that are clearly devolved. The Welsh Government, who have a substantially better record of working constructively with trade unions than this Administration, have objected to the proposals in strong terms, and are considering whether a legislative consent motion might be appropriate.
The Bill is a divisive piece of legislation which undermines the basic protections that trade unions provide for people at work. This is a partisan attack to undermine those unions, and the Labour party, but it will have substantial implications for more than 6 million workers by undermining unions’ ability to stop harassment in the workplace and ensure that the basic health and safety of workers is maintained. The Government are pushing through an agenda of attacking civil society, intimidating charities, threatening basic civil liberties, and undermining access to justice. These draconian measures must be stopped, and I urge the House to deny the Bill a Second Reading.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill, but also to make a key recommendation to the Secretary of State for a later amendment on which I hope to speak in Committee.
In the time available to me today, I want to explain why I believe in the importance of workplace representation, and why faith needs to be built into it so that it can expand to help and support workers and move away from being a political plaything. I am a founding member of Unite, by virtue of the merger that caused my Manufacturing, Science and Finance union to become first Amicus and then Unite. I eventually resigned from Unite, because it stopped being a trade union and became a financial cash cow enabling misguided Marxists at the top to play with their members’ lives for their own political fun and games.
A trade union needs to be about much more than just strikes over pay, or Labour party politics. It should be proud of the achievements that it helped to bring about in health and safety law, and of the work that brilliant and dedicated shop stewards do to improve the wellbeing of their members. As a young worker some years ago, I was victimised in the workplace, and there was no union to turn to. I learnt a lot from that. Equally, I have seen shop stewards do fantastic work for those who have faced bullying and victimisation in the workplace. It is often the shop stewards who provide the best example of trade unionism—despite those at the top—but the common factor is frequently their lack of political ambitions, and it is political ambitions that have poisoned the workplace.
Let us consider Grangemouth. Where was the collective bargaining then? There was an attempt to stitch up a Labour selection process caused by the violent actions of a Labour MP in Westminster who was expelled, while all the time the MP’s constituents and the union’s members were left to be exploited and have their pensions destroyed by an unsympathetic employer whom no one stood up to until it was too late.
As in the 1970s, today's unions use hard-working people, through either their money or their work, to try to cause pain to the democratically elected Government because they do not like the verdict of the people. That is a twisted abuse of trade unionism, in which the workers are merely pawns in a wider political game played by some power-crazed leaders whose purpose is usually to disrupt not only the Government but the leadership of the Opposition, against most of its MPs’ will. They always want to call for strikes rather than sensible negotiations, even through those of us who have had normal backgrounds like everyone else, regardless of our party. [Interruption.] Well, I went to a comprehensive school. I know that Labour Members’ new leader went to a public school, but I did not.
Even a founding member of the Labour movement, Robert Blatchford, said:
“A strike is at best a bitter, a painful and a costly thing and no substitute for political action.”
Trade unionism did not start like that. By 1868, the many trade unions had formed the TUC, which had financial plans for sickness, accident and death payments based on contributions—literally the first social security. In his book “Speak for Britain”, Martin Pugh commented:
“Prudent management of union funds won approval from contemporary politicians, but was criticised by socialists”.
He went on to say:
“This was unfair as the Victorian TUC effectively pioneered a political role for workingmen.”
In 1885, with £4 million in the bank, the TUC hesitated in funding 95 working-class MPs as it felt bound to be cautious about introducing political divisions in order properly and honestly to represent all working men. Pugh says:
“They felt incurably suspicious about overtures made by small unrepresentative socialist societies anxious to milk their funds to promote hopeless candidatures.”
But today their funds built by hard-working people have been used for just that.
It is right that the Bill brings in protection for hard-working people who want proper workplace representation rather than just a cash cow to be milked by union leaders for their own political game.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s history lesson, but it is completely wrong because the early trade unions supported the Liberal party rather than socialist candidates. Is he aware that many trade unions have political funds but donate not a single penny to the Labour party? The Minister spoke of union members not having a say, but a ballot on political funds has to be held every 10 years. People can opt out of paying the political levy at any time during their membership.
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will talk later about the opt-in and the opt-out, and I think he will listen carefully to what I have to say.
Without employer faith in trade unions we will end up in the situation that culminated in the Grunwick dispute of the late 1970s. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for whom I have great respect, will comment on that dispute because I will be fascinated to hear his account of it.
If ever there was an example of where proper, pragmatic workplace representation was needed on both sides, it was in that dispute. There can be no doubt that George Ward exploited his workers and sacked those who spoke out. The problem was that the union movement had become so toxic in the 1970s that the dispute led to a digging in of the trenches and became a symbolic political argument rather than being based on the genuine concerns of workers who were treated like his property and had to work in stifling conditions, without canteen facilities, or the ability to turn down forced overtime.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
At the heart of the Grunwick dispute was a bad employer, supported by the Conservative party, who refused to give recognition to the trade union, despite a court of inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Scarman recommending recognition and reinstatement. That would not now happen because a Labour Government legislated to introduce the right to trade union recognition.
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, because I am coming on to that point. I was about to say that I do not agree with the position my party’s leadership took then, nor the praise that was given to the strike breakers, but I give this warning: my opinions are couched in a life after the trade union reform the hon. Gentleman mentions. I was literally in nappies when the Grunwick affair took place. What it shows is that it is necessary to make sure that relations between workers who need support and the trade unions do not become part of a proxy political battle. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for workplace representation, and I welcome that that rule was brought in.
The popularity among the public and leading politicians of strike breakers was a direct consequence of trade union militancy, using the power of strike action as a political tool, even under a rather left-wing Labour Government, rather than a tool of grievance, so that when strike action was genuinely needed—as I believe it was in that case—the cause and effect were lost in a wider political argument.
We must take this example into consideration, because there is a difference between a public and a private sector dispute. The free market dictates that private companies exist according to supply and demand: if the company sinks, the market will reshape and another company will fill the void, whereas the state is solely responsible for the delivery of key public services. When conditions in the private sector are so bad that a strike has been called, the striking workers will weigh up the consequences to their ongoing conditions. In comparison, a public sector striker will go back to work having lost the day’s pay they were on strike for. They will not face a salary drop, probably will still get a pay rise and will have a very good pension. That is not the case in the private sector, where it can mean job losses, unresolved disputes and sometimes worse pay than at the start. After the general strike of 1926, the miners’ pay was worse than at the start. Those are heavy considerations for those in the private sector taking strike action, but those in the public sector do not have to worry about them. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to reconsider the proposals in the Bill to allow private sector companies to employ agency workers during strikes. There are key differences between the services provided by the private and public sectors, and that should be recognised in the Bill.
Public services are paid for by the taxpayer, and they often have terms and conditions of employment beyond the dreams of those working in the private sector. When those in the public sector strike, those in the private sector—whose taxes pay the wages of those on strike—often lose pay themselves owing to a lack of transport or childcare. That is why it is right that thresholds should be set. Such thresholds would not have made a difference to the recent tube strikes, but they would clearly indicate the strength of feeling involved. With the current ease of striking, and the consequences to members’ livelihoods that that involves, it is no wonder that only 14% of those working in the private sector take up union membership, compared with more than 50% of those in the public sector.
Alec Shelbrooke
No, I want to crack on. I have given way a couple of times, and a lot of people want to speak.
Above all else, the Bill will start the process of restoring faith in the trade union movement so that those in the private sector can feel that they have workplace representation without a militant tendency that could destroy their livelihoods or funding a political party that they do not agree with.
That brings me on to the question of opting into the political levy. How can unions offer independent workplace representation to people who desperately need their help if they are tied to the Labour party by funding it automatically? I accept that this does not apply to every union, but hard-working people’s fees are often used in that way.
As I mentioned earlier, I was a founding member of Unite. I wanted to opt out of the political levy, but it was no easy task, with advice in short supply on how to do it. In the busy workplace, I never got to action this, as my requests were always forgotten or complicated. I helped to support the 2010 general election campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who stood against a Unite-funded lackey. That cannot be right, and it clearly goes against my political beliefs.
The opt-in will need to be closely monitored. Affiliated votes in the Labour leadership campaign accounted for about 200,000 of 4.3 million trade unionists. If 1 million people suddenly opt into the political levy, something is going on. To be blunt, I believe that that could involve intimidation. Such tactics were used only last week in my constituency. Members of a protest group called the People’s NHS were knocking on doors and telling my constituents that the Government were selling off the NHS to an American company via the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. We all know that that is tosh, especially as on 8 July 2015 the European Parliament voted by 436 to 241 to exclude public services from the scope of the TTIP deal. So these people knocking on the doors of the elderly and vulnerable in my constituency are scaremongering with lies. But who are they? Well guess what—they are funded by Unite. The trouble is, having parachuted a Unite candidate from London into my seat at the general election—giving me the largest ever Tory vote in my seat, for which I am grateful—the union is now trying to lie to people to get its own way.
But it is worse than that. My constituents know me well, so they are quick to contact me with their concerns. One constituent contacted me to say that she felt “intimidated to agree” and that people
“had no choice but to put up their propaganda signs, because they were told everyone else was doing it and they would be the only ones who didn’t”.
This constituent even found comments in her name reported in the local press, which she did not agree to. Not only are those people nasty, ill-informed bullies and a disgrace to trade unionism, but to top it all they then tried to get my constituents to join Unite. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have to bring in mechanisms to ensure that the opt-in is not abused by union thugs bullying people into signing up. We received warnings about this only last weekend from the former Home Secretary, David Blunkett, who fears a return to the bullying and intimidation of the 1980s in the labour movement.
I believe that people should have workplace representation. I class myself as a trade unionist because I believe that a union of people in a trade can negotiate better with someone representing them as a group, so that those who simply do not have it in them to stand up and speak out publicly can have representatives who will. The TUC in the 19th century recognised this and wanted to support working-class MPs to enable them to represent workers politically. That is a long way from today’s practice of using members for their leadership’s own political games. The public are tired of it, and these reforms are now being demanded. I believe that there needs to be a distinction between the public and private sectors, but fundamentally I want all workers to be properly represented in the workplace, independent of party politics.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I rise in total opposition to this Bill. Let me declare my Unison membership and my 20 years of trade union activity before my election. In my maiden speech in this place, I said:
“The trade union movement gave me a political education and the confidence to stand for election, and I know that this experience is shared with other Members who did not have a privileged start in life.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 832.]
I will never be ashamed of being a trade unionist.
The irony of this Bill is that it comes from a political party that believes the answer in today’s world is to deregulate—except in the case of the trade union movement and trade union law. The unions are subjected to heavy regulation, which the Tories bitterly oppose in other circumstances. This is a timely reminder that this Government fear the trade union movement and that this Government know they can be defeated. That is because the trade union movement is the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation. The Bill will lead to a deterioration of good industrial relations and it has no support within public opinion. It is designed to reduce civil liberties and human rights.
The Bill also displays a remarkable ignorance—we have heard about that from several speakers already. The Government attempt to justify this Bill by citing industrial action that actually meets the thresholds. The Bill seeks to introduce the 40% rule, but I think it is dangerous for this Government to introduce that rule because the last time a Government tried to introduce such a rule, which affected Scotland, they had a low majority and they ended up being kicked out in a vote of no confidence. We will have the situation where dead people will be described as “not supporting” industrial action. That is why the thresholds are dangerous.
Mr MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend not think it even stranger that the 40% threshold is demanded by a Government who got only 24% of the electorate vote overall and only 10.5% of the electorate vote in Scotland? They were rejected by 90% of the voters of Scotland.
Chris Stephens
Yes, I agree. In Scotland, at the last election, the Conservative party received its lowest share of the vote since universal suffrage began. If the Government are going to introduce thresholds, they need to consider securing workplace balloting, which could be easily sorted out by Electoral Reform Services, or online voting. Political parties use online voting when selecting their candidates, so the suggestion that there might be fraud is nonsense.
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that some of the rhetoric we have heard from Conservative Members is offensive to public sector workers, who do not take strike action at the drop of a hat and who are dedicated public servants? I am talking about home carers, cleaners, cooks, social workers, bin men, bin women and all those other people who safeguard our public services today. They do not take strike action at the drop of a hat, and it is disgraceful that Conservative Members have been using this rhetoric today.
Chris Stephens
I agree completely, and I will give some examples confirming what the hon. Lady describes. Introducing online voting and securing workplace balloting would be modernisation. We keep hearing about modernisation from Conservative Members, and we will come on to deal with it.
The other danger about thresholds relates to issues of equality and, in particular, gender equality. We know that in some male-dominated trade union workplaces women who have young families are affected when there are shift changes, and thresholds would have an impact on the rights of women workers to pursue industrial action on that basis. That happened recently in the case of a fire brigade control service in Essex.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We have heard rhetoric from Conservative Members about how the Bill will help hard-working people go about their business. Does the hon. Gentleman not therefore find it ironic that curtailing the rights of working people to organise collectively through trade unions, which is what this Bill is designed to do, will stop those people arguing for and bargaining for better working conditions?
Chris Stephens
Yes, I do. The Bill is designed to continue austerity—that is exactly what it is about. It is about trying to curb the largest organisation in the UK that is campaigning against austerity.
These issues of gender equality are very important, because recent trends have shown that what is on the increase is pregnant workers being dismissed and women workers coming back from maternity leave being made redundant. That is a recent phenomenon and this Parliament will need to address it. The Government have not taken any of those issues into account. As we heard earlier, 270 Conservative Members would not have been elected if those thresholds had been in place.
There is also the issue of the deadlines on ballot times. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State say that industrial action would not be curbed, but in actual fact it could be. Let us say that a large employer issued a 45-day redundancy notice. If the trade unions have to give 14 days’ notice of a ballot and 14 days’ notice to take industrial action, it will be very difficult for them to organise themselves within that timeframe, and it could well make industrial action impossible.
We oppose the changes on political funds. This is about not just party politics and attacking the Labour party, but the general campaigning that the trade unions fund as well. I am talking here about equal pay; stronger maternity leave; 50:50 gender representation; and giving money to organisations such as HOPE not hate and other anti-racist organisations, community groups, and international aid organisations such as Justice for Colombia and Medical Aid for Palestine.
Dawn Butler
On that point, the Bakers Union is campaigning for fair rights for fast food workers, and is trying to increase hourly pay in America from $7 to $15 and in the UK to £10. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this measure is trying to restrict that kind of activity?
Chris Stephens
That is exactly what it is designed to do. This attack is to weaken the rights of trade union members. When it comes to political funds, it should be up to the trade union members to decide. If members have issues about who trade unions are funding, it is up to them to organise themselves and to take up the matter with their trade unions—just as I always do. When my union funds a campaign that I might not necessarily support, I am told, quite rightly, that it should be up to us to organise.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this area is much regulated at the moment? Not only do union members have to vote every 10 years on whether they want a political fund, but individuals also have a right to opt out of a political fund at any time they want. All the accounts of a political fund must be not only validated by the internal accountants but published. How much more transparency can we get?
Chris Stephens
Yes, indeed. I think the system is transparent. In my own trade union, we had the choice to fund the affiliated political fund within Unison or the general political fund, or even to opt out of the political fund.
The other danger with this Bill is that it politicises the role of the certification officer. We are also concerned with the new proposals on picketing and providing names. Such measures can only result in a new blacklist. Anyone who is a picket might as well wear two armbands—“union picket” on one arm and “blacklist me” on the other. That sets a very dangerous precedent. It also does not take into account the fact that Scotland and England have different criminal laws. I believe that is why we have heard comparisons with Franco’s regime.
The other concern relates to agency workers who are not supported by the agencies themselves. That can lead only to distrust within a workplace between those who are agency workers and those who work for the employer. Any time an employer asks a trade union about bringing in agency workers, there will immediately be suspicions about what the employer is up to. It is a rogue employers’ charter and the Government must think again on the matter.
I want to talk about check-off and facility time, and the incredible statements we have heard from the Government in that regard. I submitted a written parliamentary question on check-off and received the following answer from the Cabinet Office:
“It is no longer appropriate for public sector employers to carry the administrative burden of providing a check off facility for those trade unions that have not yet modernised their subscription arrangements. Employers are under no obligation to offer this service. There would therefore be no cost associated with an employer not providing this service”.
That shows a lot of ignorance, because what the Government appear not to know—they seem blissfully unaware of this—is that in many instances trade unions pay for check-off and for workers on facility time.
Let me give some examples of the deductions that could be made from a worker’s salary: charities’ give-as-you-earn, season ticket loans, credit union payments, staff associations—under these proposals there can be deductions for staff associations, but not for trade unions—bicycle loans, council tax and rent. Those are just examples of what can be deducted from a worker’s salary, and the Government call removing check-off modernisation! What a ludicrous suggestion.
Chris Philp
First, all the examples that the hon. Gentleman has just given involve the employee opting in, rather than opting out, which is exactly what this legislation proposes. Secondly, of the 972 public bodies that do check-off fees, only 213—that is 22%—charge for the service; 78% do it for free.
Chris Stephens
The point is that they have chosen to provide the service for free. If there was a genuine consultation on this, many public bodies, including the Scottish and Welsh Governments, would say that they are not interested in removing check-off. Indeed, my former employer, Glasgow City Council, has today said that it is not interested and that it will ignore the request. The hon. Gentleman appears to suggest that people join trade unions automatically, but that is not the case. I signed a form and decided to tick my political fund arrangements on that basis.
Our view is that the Government have no right to interfere in the industrial relations of councils, health boards or devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom. Facility time improves industrial relations. It negates issues that would otherwise go to tribunal. If an employer has good facility time arrangements, disciplinary hearings and grievance hearings, for example, are conducted in a timeous fashion. If facility time is interfered with, those timescales will slip. Facility time is a good thing; it is good for industrial relations and it gets things done.
Geraint Davies
Do the hon. Gentleman’s points not illustrate that this Bill is causing division where there was harmony—between the nations, within organisations, between agency workers and workers, and between management and workers—and that it will therefore undermine productivity, cause conflict and protest and be contrary to its alleged objectives? In fact, it is just an ideological, mean-spirited measure that should be voted down by any sensible person.
Chris Stephens
I agree. The Bill is an ideological assault against the largest group in civic society that is standing up to the Government’s policies and to austerity.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with what the International Monetary Fund has said about the benefits of collective bargaining when it comes to economic success and prosperity? The Government are clearly either unaware of the IMF’s support for strong trade unions or not interested in having strong trade unions.
Chris Stephens
I agree, because what has happened to collective bargaining is tragic. In 1979, for example, 81% of workers in Scotland had their pay determined by collective bargaining, but that figure is now 23%. Collective bargaining should be encouraged across the board, because it leads to higher wages.
The Government should be going in the opposite direction. We need stronger trade union rights and stronger employment rights in this country. It cannot be right that an employer can issue a 45-day redundancy notice to a worker. That was one of the big mistakes of the previous Administration. We believe that trade unions have the right to bargain collectively. We believe that this Bill seeks to undermine the great work of the trade union movement. It is a 19th-century solution in a 21st-century world.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill by the British Government is a real threat to the positive working relationships between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress? The secretary-general of the STUC has said:
“The Westminster Government is essentially arguing, on the basis of an apparent desire to save ‘taxpayers money’ that the Scottish Government”—
a devolved Government in this United Kingdom—
“should not be allowed . . . to promote positive working relationships”.
Should not this Bill just be thrown out, because if we are “better together” it doesn’t bloody well feel like it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman might like to rephrase the last sentence of his intervention.
Martin John Docherty
I will rephrase it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It feels like murder. [Interruption.]
Chris Stephens
Murderopolis, indeed.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The TUC, the STUC and the TUC in Wales are having these discussions. The STUC and the Scottish Government oppose the Bill, and the TUC in Wales and the Welsh Government oppose it. Local authorities oppose it. Health boards oppose it. It has no support whatsoever across the public services.
Chris Stephens
I am just finishing.
The Bill is an attack on our civil liberties and our human rights. As such, it does not deserve a Second Reading.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I speak in support of the Bill but not against the trade union movement or its members. In fact, I hope to work with the Unite union to set up a taskforce for a business, Flowserve in Newark in my constituency, where Unite is representing my constituents powerfully and efficiently. I want to reach out to it in the days to come.
In my own family history, I see the trade union movement at its best—as an important voice for the expression and protection of working people faced by endemic low pay and appalling working conditions. My great-grandfather, James Barrett, was a leader of the general strike in Manchester. He was drawn to trade unionism by the plight of his wife, my great-grandmother, Mary Ridge, whose first husband, a trade unionist before the great war, was blacklisted, unable to work, and forced to emigrate to the United States. He was unable to afford a ticket for both of them, leaving my great-grandmother behind in Salford to look after their children, essentially to rebuild her life, before eventually finding out that her husband had died a broken man in the United States years afterwards. Men and women like these—there are many others in the history of this country—were driven by their concern for the condition of working people they saw around them, the most vulnerable in society. They were, as Harold Wilson liked to say about the Labour party, driven more by Methodism than Marxism.
It is in that spirit that I approach this Bill, asking myself and this House how we can best defend and enrich the rights and the working lives of all people, but particularly the most vulnerable working people in society. The imperative to represent the common good of all working people lies at the heart of this Bill. That is all the more important today, as membership of trade unions continues to decline. At least 79% of the working people of this country are not members of trade unions.
Lady Hermon
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware, I am sure, that a very high percentage of people who are trade union representatives and members are extremely concerned about this Bill’s possible infringement of their right and freedom to assemble, which is guaranteed by article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Whatever he and his colleagues think about it, that was the best decision the Labour party made when it brought it home in the Human Rights Act 1998. Where in this Bill can he point to the guarantee that there will not be an infringement of article 11 of the European convention?
Robert Jenrick
Nothing in this Bill infringes the right to strike. It asks trade union bosses to achieve a higher mandate for those strikes. That can only strengthen the position of those trade union leaders, who will have the power and authority to win a clear mandate from their members.
Robert Jenrick
Let me continue. Today the majority of those in trade unions are not the working poor—53% of members are in professional, associate professional or managerial occupations. Only a minority are in lower skilled, invariably lower-paid occupations, such as caring, leisure, processing, plant and machine work. Today’s trade unions predominantly serve middle-income workers. The figures show that those earning less than £250 a week—roughly the equivalent of a full-time job on the minimum wage—are the least likely to join a trade union. Just 13% of those workers are members, which is a smaller figure than the proportion of those earning more than £1,000 a week, who make up 22% of trade union members.
Robert Jenrick
If I may continue, most working people in lower-skilled, lower-paid roles are not part of trade unions, and it is they who are most deeply impacted by the disruption of strikes, particularly in key public services, including education and transport. It is right that this House rebalances our trade union laws in favour of all working people. It seems entirely reasonable, therefore, that, among other sensible reforms and amendments, we introduce a 50% threshold for ballot turnout and a 40% support threshold for key public services.
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman seems to be a reasonable man who has misunderstood the Bill. He says that he wants to help workers and defend their rights and that he supports the threshold, but what possible explanation could there be for Government Front Benchers to continue to tell us that they will not support electronic balloting? How can that possibly be reasonable in the 21st century?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he is deeply concerned about fraud, which is in no way in the interests of fair strikes and the trade union movement.
Robert Jenrick
Let me continue. Far from diminishing the voice of trade unions, as I said in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), achieving the thresholds would increase the legitimacy of trade unions with management and shareholders and in the eyes of the general public. As we politicians know only too well, a strong mandate increases our legitimacy and the power and authority of our actions, and we have heard a lot over the past few days from the trade unions and their leaders about the value of a strong mandate.
As a result of this Bill, there may well be fewer strikes on less substantive matters that are not viewed by the unions’ own members as sufficiently serious to justify putting their employer and thus their job in jeopardy or that seriously inconvenience customers and the general public. Those that do go ahead will have a greater mandate and higher legitimacy, and consequently will need to be taken much more seriously by everybody involved in the negotiation.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my parliamentary neighbour for giving way. He will recall the mass demonstration in his constituency following the unofficial power workers strike, when 5,000 people marched. I spoke at the rally and it concluded a dispute that involved a lot of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Is he aware that those constituents of his who participated would be criminalised by this Bill?
Robert Jenrick
The key issue is that trade union leaders should speak for their members and achieve a clear mandate from them.
Robert Jenrick
Other Members want to speak, so let me come to the end of my remarks.
The only unions and leaders who need fear these reforms are those who do not believe that they can regularly convince their own members of the veracity of their arguments—those who have essentially lost touch with the high ideals of the founders of the trade union movement. I think back to my ancestor, Mary Ridge. What would she have thought of the union leader who last year called a strike of teachers based on ballots that were years out of date and in which fewer than a quarter of teachers voted? It closed a special school in Newark at which parents, already struggling with the demands of juggling jobs and caring for children with special educational needs, had to take time off work or seek specialist childcare at short notice. What would she have thought of the female city cleaner on a low income trudging home through the streets of London because trade union bosses had taken tube drivers, whose average starting salary is £50,000 a year for 36 hours a week, out on strikes?
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way, because Madam Deputy Speaker wishes me to finish my remarks.
My ancestor would be surprised and ashamed by what some of the current trade union leaders have become.
In conclusion, there is unease among working people in this country about their economic lives and the economic situation around them. Much of that is to do with concentrations of power: the banks, the utility companies, and the housing market favouring existing owners. Organisations such as the CBI, the BBC or monopolistic companies such as BT Openreach speak loudly, but it is unclear whom they represent. Such organisations protect the interests of the privileged few. The Bill must be seen as part of a wider effort to move our economy and our society away from vested interests and the stifling effects of corporatism and back in favour of the common good of all working people in this country.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I draw to the House’s attention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the Communication Workers Union.
In no other country in Europe would a mainstream, right-of-centre party bring forward such a Bill. It is an attack upon the trade union movement that may as well be called the dark satanic mills Bill, because even dark satanic mill owners may have hesitated to introduce such measures. The first rule of any legislation should be that it is necessary and tackles a perceived and obvious problem. That cannot be the case when industrial action over the past five years has been the third lowest five-year aggregate period in the history of this country. It cannot be the case that this is a serious issue.
Let me tell Government Members that just as trade union officials, whether leaders, shop stewards or local representatives, resort to industrial action only as a last possible measure, this House should consider legislation only as a last possible measure. I have never heard such a weak argument from a Secretary of State to support a Bill or a paucity of arguments supporting it, many of which seem to say, “We support trade unions and their right to strike,” but the only problem is that they have never supported a single strike in the whole history of the trade union movement.
Andrew Bridgen
The right hon. Gentleman’s opening argument is exactly the same as that made by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who would not take an intervention from me. My counter is that if union action and days lost due to strikes are at their lowest-ever level, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the 70% increase in days lost due to industrial action in 2014 compared with 2013? Was it down to his union bosses flexing their muscles ahead of a general election?
Alan Johnson
I suggest that we set a room aside with some crayons and colouring boards and perhaps a “Teletubbies” DVD for those who want to engage in that level of immaturity. We are seeing the lowest level of industrial action practically since records began. The wonder of the past five years is that there has not been more industrial action given the problems that workers have had to go through.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the Regulatory Policy Committee’s comment that the Government have singularly failed to justify these measures and restrictions on the right to organise and protest? It has said clearly that no case has been made, so why are they doing this?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the RPC has said that the Bill is not fit for purpose. I will come to that in a second.
Richard Fuller
I hope I pass the “Teletubbies” hurdle for intellectual input. On the point about the numbers that strike, what consideration does the right hon. Gentleman give to the number of people impacted by strikes? When he was a Minister and subsequently, has that been a consideration in his thoughts about how unions’ right to strike should be regulated?
Alan Johnson
Of course industrial action has an impact, which is why, as I said, no trade unionist, trade union leader or trade union shop steward would ever contemplate industrial action unless it was as a last resort. When there was a protest in Parliament Square, as there frequently are, I was inconvenienced. The Hull fun run on Sunday was an enormous inconvenience. We do not attack democracy and democratic institutions on the basis that some people are inconvenienced by them. We either accept the right to strike, as the Secretary of State said he did, or we make facetious arguments about its having an effect on other people, in which case, just like Mussolini and Hitler, whose first action it was, we ban free trade unions. But that is not what the Bill is about, as I understand it.
Alan Johnson
No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already, and he did not pass the “Teletubbies” test.
Grahame M. Morris
Is not the number of days lost in the UK to industrial action only half the EU average? Furthermore, are not 20 times more days lost owing to stress and depression, and might that not have something to do with the nature of this Government?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend, a good gas fitter in his time, makes a good point.
The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) is an exception, but many Government Members do not have sufficient experience of dealing with employers and trade unions and of needing a trade union to defend them. We know that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was once on a National Union of Journalists picket line in Aberdeen, but I think the Red Gove period did not last very long. I think he is practically alone in the Cabinet in having that experience.
There are many aspects of the Bill that I hope will be dealt with in Committee. It deserves the scrutiny it will get from Opposition Members when its passes through Second Reading—I hope it does not get a Second Reading, but I fear the worst—but its primary purpose is to introduce stringent restrictions on trade unions’ ability to take industrial action, so the first question has to be why. As hon. Members have said, we have gone from an average of 7.2 million days lost to industrial action each year in the ’80s to 647,000 since 2010. That is a spectacular reduction. On average, a unionised British worker will take strike action for one day every 15 years, and the duration of that action is likely to be one day.
Catherine West
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is one exception to that? In London, under a leader who sits in this House and who has always refused to meet the trade unions or treat them like human beings, we have had three times as many strikes as during the previous eight years under a Labour Mayor?
Alan Johnson
It just so happens that that particular Member was trying to intervene on me. I gladly give way to him.
Boris Johnson
I am happy to inform the House that the previous Mayor met the leader of the RMT only once, reportedly called him a gangster and sacked him from the board of Transport for London. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—and, for all I know, relative—to acknowledge that the reason the Government are bringing forward this serious and, in my view, sensible Bill is that we have too many wildcat strikes, particularly in the transport sector? He began by saying that no other country in Europe would bring forward such proposals. Can I tell him—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should receive the same courtesy as every other Member of the House while he makes a brief intervention.
Boris Johnson
I tell the right hon. Gentleman that not only do many European countries have restrictions and insist on minimum service requirements during strike action, but some countries ban strike action altogether, notably the United States, where 39 out of the 50 states ban mass transit workers from going on strike. He should also know that in Germany, which somebody mentioned earlier, there is a ballot threshold of 75%. These measures are entirely sensible and will prevent the abuse of working people.
Alan Johnson
I think that could be described as a wildcat intervention. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the result of this legislation will be more wildcat strikes. Yes, there are other countries where people are not allowed to strike. Postal workers in America, for instance, are not allowed to strike. In this country, prison officers and the police are not allowed to strike. In every single system like that, there is a process of employment relations and a process to air grievances that give a distinctive advantage to those industries in getting a result. According to the Secretary of State, the Bill does not say that there are industries in which strikes should not take place; it is an effort to affect millions of trade unionists and inhibit their right to strike because of a dispute involving a few thousand people at London Underground. That is the truth of the matter.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the description of strikes as “wildcat” is wildly inaccurate, because there is a very detailed process that every organisation must go through in order to allow its members to take industrial action?
Alan Johnson
That is an extremely important point. Another important statistic is that one in five industrial action ballots does not lead to any industrial action being taken. That tells us, among other things, that trade unionists do not take industrial action when the support is lukewarm.
What is interesting to me is that there is nothing in this or any other Government Bill that is designed to improve industrial relations—nothing like the partnership fund or the union learning fund that we set up to encourage both sides to come together. I tell the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) that, as a junior Minister, I once presented the partnership prize, which was a substantial metal object, to the late, great Bob Crow. Two weeks later, I read in the Evening Standard that there had been a big row between the RMT and London Underground, and that the RMT rep had thrown something at the London Underground manager. I just hoped that it was not the partnership fund award that I had presented.
We took positive action to ensure that the industrial relations climate everywhere across the country was better. There is nothing in the Bill that attempts to do that. As 77 experts in the field said in a letter to The Guardian, the Bill will have the opposite effect. They said that instead of proceeding with this, to use their term, “perverse” Bill,
“the government should be looking more seriously at how to engage and involve the British workforce and its representatives in rebuilding the UK economy and raising productivity”.
I say to Government Members that the Department of Trade and Industry had a review of facility time in 2007. The officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at 1 Victoria Street are exactly the same officials who were at the DTI. There was wide consultation. The outcome was that facility time provided a net advantage to the employer and the country. It was also important in raising productivity—something that this Government have a serious problem with.
With no evidence as to its necessity, the Government have pressed ahead as if this were emergency legislation, scheduling Second Reading four days after the already compressed and laughably short consultation period. The aim seems to be to ensure that our debate coincides with the first day of the Trades Union Congress—a level of immaturity not seen since members of the Bullingdon club thought it would be fun to bare their bottoms outside a convent. Perhaps the Bill was drawn up by the Bullingdon club—perhaps the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip can tell us—and it certainly could not have been constructed more maladroitly if it had been.
The Department from which this Bill emanates is under new management. I suppose we could describe the former Secretary of State as the artist formerly known as Vince, and how we miss the worldly wise maturity of the former Member for Twickenham, who obviously managed to keep the padlock on the playpen in his years at 1 Victoria Street. He described the Bill as
“vindictive, counterproductive and ideologically driven,”
and he has never spoken a truer word in his life.
The central feature of the Bill, which should be disturbing right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches, is that it is unprecedented, undemocratic and indefensible. Why? Because it gives a vote in trade union ballots to those who have, for whatever reason, decided not to cast their vote, and it classifies that vote in every circumstance as a “no” to industrial action. I honestly thought that the Secretary of State would give some examples of where such a measure is used. A golf club perhaps, or a local charity—anything where people who do not vote are classified as voting against. If, in a workplace of 1,000 people 499 workers vote in favour of industrial action and there is not a single vote against, that industrial action would be illegal. In the parlance of this Chamber, the noes would have it, the noes would have it.
The abstainers, the apathetic and the forgetful will have a no vote, as will those who miss the post—I love that as a former postman, but this is the only element of society where the only way that anything can be done is through the post. Communication Workers Union members are grateful, but they realise that this is not just about increasing their workload; it about attacking their rights.
If my hypothetical workplace fell under one of the six areas so far defined as important public services, a 79% yes vote on a 50% turnout would be illegal, as would a 64% yes vote on a 64% turnout. That cannot be defended. Someone could be the most rabid anti-trade union politician in the House—there may be some in the Chamber at the moment—but if their concern is for human rights and civil liberties they cannot defend that measure. It is literally indefensible.
We would not consider governing our debates in this House with such a practice. Why not govern our debates in that way if it is a democratic way to do it, so that those who do not vote are counted in the No Lobby? As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) pointed out there is an issue about how we got our mandate on May 7, and the Secretary of State said, “Oh, but that is not a binary decision.” The European Union (Referendum) Bill that we debated last Monday is a binary decision, and we did not spend a second debating whether people who did not bother to vote should be counted as a no vote. Why not do that? If this is at all democratic, why is it not in that Bill?
Boris Johnson
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that plenty of institutions in this country rely on the concept of a quorum before they take important decisions—particularly damaging decisions—about the lives of millions of people? It is only right that we should subject decisions by trade unions to a quorum.
Alan Johnson
I have been generous to fellow members of the Johnson clan, but the hon. Gentleman must understand the difference. In those organisations and countries where a 75% threshold is set for industrial action, it is 75% of those voting. Perhaps there should be thresholds in some of the constitutional referendums that we have. Perhaps leaving the European Union should require a 75% yes vote because it is a major constitutional issue, but it would be 75% of those voting. That is the difference with this legislation.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my right hon. Friend agree that some trade union rule books have the same provision—they need a certain percentage of those voting to take forward industrial action?
Alan Johnson
That is correct, and it should be something that we look at as part of a review of our democratic process, stretching from the other place to all the other aspects that Conservative Members have raised about the health of our democracy.
Alan Johnson
No, I will not give way.
One thing that cannot be suggested is that the decision on the European Union is less important than the decision that union members take in industrial action ballots, but that is the only argument put forward for the introduction of this measure in the Bill. These are important issues, we are told, and the loss of important public services can have far-reaching effects on significant numbers of ordinary people. Well, so can the EU referendum. I suggest that Conservative Members should make the argument that people who do not vote should be recorded as voting no—
Alan Johnson
No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. We have heard enough from him—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I seem to have made a popular decision.
Of course, the Government would make no such proposal, because it does not support democracy—indeed, it offends democracy. But we know nothing of the responses from all the institutions that may want us to take their views into account because the Bill was drawn up and put before the House even though the consultation closed only last Wednesday, five days ago. Incidentally, that breaches the Government’s own advice on how to consult on legislation.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned, the Bill did go before the Regulatory Policy Committee, which was scathing about three aspects of the legislation it was asked to examine, including the thresholds for 40% and 50%. It gave a red card to all three, deeming them not fit for purpose and stating that the Government had not provided sufficient evidence of the likely impact of the proposals to support the consultation. The Regulatory Policy Committee is the Government’s own watchdog, and that is as damning an indictment of a piece of legislation as we are ever likely to see from it.
Another aspect of the Bill is the attempt to make processes involved in picketing part of criminal rather than civil law. It is designed to address allegations of picket line intimidation, but the Carr review, set up by the Conservatives under the coalition Government to investigate such allegations, specifically said that it could find no evidence of intimidation. In response to the review, which was led by a Conservative, the Local Government Association said that its view was that
“there are no particular issues for local government in terms of alleged extreme tactics and the appropriateness of the legal framework to deal with inappropriate and intimidatory actions …we…very rarely…hear of such alleged tactics”.
Through the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police said:
“In general the legislative framework is seen by the police as broadly fit for purpose and the range of criminal offences available to the police sufficient to deal with the situations encountered.”
This is a non-issue. It was examined by a committee that had to downgrade itself because there was no evidence.
The Government know little about the workplaces of Britain and understand less. They certainly have no comprehension of the role that free, independent trade unions play as an essential component of a mature democracy or the history of the struggle for workers’ rights in this country. Many Conservative Members probably think the Donovan commission was the backing group on “Mellow Yellow”.
John Mann
My right hon. Friend has substantive experience of these matters over many years. Does he think that when a grievance in the workplace is artificially blocked from expressing itself it tends to go away, or does it fester in much worse ways for a much longer period of time, to the disadvantage of the employer as well as employees?
Alan Johnson
My hon. Friend raises the central point. I do not know about other trade union officials here, but I spent most of my time trying to stop strikes, trying to resolve them after they had happened and trying to find a formula to get people back to work. Try standing in front of 2,000 striking Liverpool postmen and telling them “I’ve got a deal.”
There is a complete fallacy which is shared by even the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell and his colleagues who are trade union members. They seem to miss the point that if unions cannot ballot legally, they lose the opportunity for leadership to hold the pressure cooker together and to conduct disputes in a civilised way with the employer. To lose or discourage that is asking for the kind of wildcat action mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see you are looking at me. I will conclude my comments. Where the Government have consulted, the response is not known. Where they have put the Bill’s measures to its own Regulatory Policy Committee, they have been deemed not fit for purpose. The review commissioned to look at aspects of this proposed legislation was downgraded by its own Government-appointed chair. The major aspects of the Bill will breach the legally binding undertakings that UK Governments have signed up to through the International Labour Organisation. The greatest threat to workers and employees is not from balloted industrial action, which last year led to 155 stoppages in an economy of over 30 million workers, but from disruptive unofficial action that neither side of industry can control and that the Bill will make more likely. I am reminded of a Russian trade unionist—we all met them in our days as trade union officials before 1990—who said to me, “Of course industrial action is legal in Russia, as long as it has been approved by the state.” All I can say is that the Russians would have been proud of this Bill. It is a bad Bill. It needs to be killed—now.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will be a lot brisker than the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). I hope I will be able to get through what I want to say in three or four minutes. If I do it briskly enough I will irritate everybody in this debate, because there are fallacies on all sides. I was not going to declare an interest, but the contribution by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has provoked me. I do not have a financial interest, but my grandfather was blacklisted.
Chris Stephens
I merely quoted the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Franco.
Mr Davis
The reason those comments resonate with me is that my grandfather, who brought me up, was as a young man blacklisted and unemployed for 17 years because he was an organiser in the coalfields in the north-east. The House will understand that I am a little sensitive to some of the impingements on civil liberties that can come out of industrial relations.
It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I keep calling him my right hon. Friend. He was a fabulously good trade union leader. As we just heard, he is a great debater, but he and I have also served occasionally on the same side in negotiations. Every single time, we managed to get an outcome that was helpful to the workforce and to the companies we were dealing with. That does not mean, however, that he has everything right here.
I have been very helpful to the Labour party in some of the comments I have made, but I will say this: there is an issue when a monopoly—it does not matter whether it is a private or public sector monopoly—goes on strike. The victim is then the public. It is not the workforce, because they tend to get their money back in overtime, and it is certainly not the owners, because their market share does not go away and they do not lose anything. The public, however, have nowhere else to go. I have some sympathy with much of Labour Members’ criticisms of the Bill, but they have to address this issue: how do we deal with a problem where action by a trade union, without proper and sufficient support from its membership, discomforts the public very badly?
Mr Davis
No, I am going to be very brisk.
The word “discomfort” is a very soft word to use. Not being able to go to work, to hospital or to school is more than a discomfort.
I would like to come on to my primary criticisms of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proposals relating to picketing. I am particularly offended by the idea that a picket organiser needs to give his name to the police force. I have discussed this with the Minister and know that this provision has been included in previous legislation. I am ashamed to say that I missed it last time, otherwise I would have voted against it. This is a serious restriction of freedom of association. It is not the same as getting the organiser of a big demonstration to give his name to the police. There is all the difference in the world between 500,000 people clogging up London and half a dozen pickets shivering around a brazier while trying to maintain a strike.
This issue is incredibly important, and we do not want to get on to a slippery slope. I say to the Minister that I will be seeking—and I am not alone—to alter the measure during the Bill’s progress. Doing that will improve the Bill; it will not make it worse or take away anything fundamental. It will, however, remove the suggestion, made time and again by the Opposition, that this is somehow a vindictive anti-union Bill. It is not. This should be a Bill for the people, not against the unions. That is what fits with our approach.
I also want to raise the issue—it is in consultation at the moment, but because the consultation has been fast it may turn up as a Government amendment later—of restricting the actions of unions on social media. This proposal strikes me as both impractical—how on earth would it be done?—and asking for judicial trouble. There will be judicial review if this line is pursued. It has been argued that the measure is there to stop bullying. Well, fine—then pass a law to stop bullying and intimidation, but make it affect everybody, not just trade unions. We already have quite a lot of laws to prevent intimidation.
They are two critical elements and weaknesses in the Bill. I say to the Minister that I will seek to prevent both of them making it through to Third Reading. I will vote for the Bill today, but I am afraid that if it still contains those measures on Third Reading, I will vote against it. I say again to him that I doubt I will be alone.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, it will be obvious to the House that although we have been having a lively debate and I have allowed speeches to go on to encourage genuine debate, a very large number of Members wish to speak. I will now have to impose a time limit of six minutes.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In opening the debate, the Secretary of State mentioned one nation Government. Disraeli, the architect of one nation Toryism, passed the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, which decriminalised the work of trade unions and allowed for picketing. I think Disraeli will be turning in his grave at what a Conservative Government are doing tonight. The Bill runs contrary to a British sense of fair play and common sense. It will increase bureaucracy and burdens of regulation, and it will be counterproductive to the Government’s stated aims of improving efficiency and productivity. The Bill will not help us become more prosperous. If anything, it runs the risk of making industrial action more disruptive and the British economy less productive and less attractive to inward investment.
As several of my hon. Friends have already said, the level of industrial action in the UK is historically low. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, the average number of working days lost to industrial action since 2010 has been 647,000, in stark contrast to the average in the 1980s of 7.213 million. The past 30 years have seen a historically low incidence of industrial action, as a consequence of the changing nature of the employment market, a reduction in union membership and legislation that, frankly, has restricted union power.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) suggested that such events were inconveniences when they happen. Surely the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) can accept that London is brought to its knees on a regular basis, with staff taking two or three hours to get to work and back again and with a great loss of employment and money. These are not inconveniences; they are serious and they need tackling.
Mr Wright
Britain has low levels of industrial disputes relative to our main economic rivals—half the EU average, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) said, and lower than the figures in the US, Korea and Canada. If industrial action acting as a material disruption to the running of the modern economy is the premise behind the Bill, that will not bear scrutiny of the evidence.
Clause 2, which introduces a 50% turnout requirement to authorise a ballot, has significant implications. It goes against the British value of common sense and fair play. No other part of the constitutional settlement or democratic engagement requires that threshold. Clause 3, requiring 40% support for action in “important public services” is equally sinister. Again, in no other part of important public services is that required. It is not a requirement for the important public service of electing a local councillor or a Member of Parliament.
The Government argue that a positive impact of the provisions in clauses 2 and 3 will be that unions will work harder to make the case for ballots for industrial action. However, it is far more likely that there will be greater disruption and use of leverage campaigns, such as withdrawal of good will, work-to-rule, protests, demonstrations and unofficial action. Paradoxically, the Bill might result in more working days lost to industrial action and a failure to address the pressing economic challenge of improving productivity. In a modern economy, surely the most appropriate approach is collaboration rather than confrontation.
When General Motors was restructuring its European operations in 2012, the Ellesmere Port car plant would probably have closed had it not been for the close working relationship between management and unions. The ability of Nissan to win the internal competition to build the new Juke earlier this month is testimony to continuous improvement, a drive towards efficiency and constantly rising quality levels, which are possible only through effective collaboration between management and unions.
The Bill pushes us towards a more adversarial relationship between management and the workforce. Does the Minister really think that deals such as those done on behalf of the UK economy with GM or Nissan will be made easier through this Bill when its provisions lend themselves to mutual suspicion, acrimony, work-to-rule and more disruptive industrial relations? The ability of this country to land more inward investment is compromised through the Bill.
The Secretary of State has stated that one of the main themes of his leadership of the Department will be deregulation and we on the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills will certainly want to consider the work of the Government to ensure that businesses are freed from unnecessary red tape, but why has the same approach to deregulation not been applied to the Bill? Under clause 6, the Bill imposes such burdensome regulation that it puts the EU banana straightening compliance team to shame. The extension of the roles and powers of the certification officer will impose additional administrative and financial pressures on unions. There will be a reporting requirement as to whether industrial action took place in the past 12 months, the nature of the dispute and the action that was taken. Unions might not collect such information centrally, so that will add additional bureaucracy. There is also something sinister about the state’s collecting information on what might be private disputes between the employer and workforce that could be resolved relatively early in the negotiation process.
In an economy that is becoming increasingly characterised by unequal, low-skilled and insecure employment with workers employed in small companies or often categorised as self-employed, the challenge of collective bargaining and how unions can work to play a positive role should be considered and encouraged, yet this petty and vindictive Bill does nothing to deal with that. It stops harmonious industrial relations and long-term prosperity. It should be killed by the House tonight.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, which brings some much-needed modernisation and a little common sense back into trade union law. As we continue to rebalance the economy and reform the public sector, we cannot leave trade union law unreformed if we are to continue to compete in the global economy. The measures proposed today are both reasonable and moderate and will enhance our economic competitiveness while protecting the essential rights of trade union members.
Clause 2, with its turnout requirement, has provoked some opposition, with the argument being made that if it were applied to politicians they might not meet the threshold. I would argue that that tends to apply only in local government elections, where there is a lack of voter engagement. There is no greater engagement than deciding whether to go to work on a Monday morning or not, so if the union’s cause is strong enough, meeting the turnout threshold should not pose a problem.
The need for the clause has been further supported by the comments made by union leaders today. The Labour party and union bosses are now effectively as one, and the Public and Commercial Services Union general secretary, Mark Serwotka, has said:
“We have the ability to stop austerity in its tracks, to topple this government and to ensure we get a fairer society.”
Those comments serve only to fuel concerns that union leaders, emboldened and unchallenged by the Labour party, will seek to use their members as pawns in some sort of cynical political power struggle.
Christian Matheson
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that PCS is not affiliated to the Labour party?
Andrew Bridgen
I think it probably will be now that Labour has a new leader—it seems to be very politically aligned.
It should be noted that according to the Office for National Statistics, 3 million working days have been lost in the past five years due to labour disputes, more than 80% in the public sector. That is simply unfair on the hard-working taxpayer, so, on their behalf, I welcome clause 2.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit of a cheek for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to question the constitutional propriety of the Bill, which has an election mandate behind it from the election four months ago, whereas, under the previous Labour Government, the unions effectively bought policy through the Warwick I and Warwick II agreements in exchange for large amounts of funding for the Labour party?
Andrew Bridgen
My hon. Friend makes a point that has been made often. I think we also saw the influence of the union movement in the recent Labour leadership elections and the selection of Front Benchers.
Other sensible measures in the Bill are clauses 7 and 8, which set an expiry date on industrial action ballot mandates and extend the notice period that unions must give employers from seven to 14 days. The latter will give more time to reach settlements, which can only be a good thing for all parties concerned, while giving those adversely affected, such as commuters and parents, time to make other arrangements, whereas the former is a common-sense measure given the present situation of having effectively rolling mandates that can last for years and might be ongoing long after the members who originally voted for them have left employment.
Clause 9, on picketing, has engendered a number of comments and I understand that there are concerns about the level of police involvement. There is, however, an issue of intimidation in the trade union movement. One needs only to think back to the incident with Unite officials at the Grangemouth oil refinery in 2013, in which a mob was sent to protest outside a family home with banners, flags and a giant inflatable rat, which led to a country pub and even a charity fun run being disrupted.
Mr David Davis
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but my simple question is: why not deal with that through a general anti-intimidation law rather than a specific union law?
Andrew Bridgen
My right hon. Friend has made that point and it is worthy of consideration. I am sure that he will bring his knowledge of the subject to our discussions of the Bill as we proceed.
That incident was linked to a Labour party candidate selection row and was perpetrated by union officials. That serves only to highlight how intimidation tactics have recently been employed by a limited number of trade union activists, and those tactics have no place in this country, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) agrees.
Andrew Bridgen
I have already given way, and I am afraid I will not do so again on this occasion—I would love to, but I cannot.
That leads me neatly on to the political levy. I see no reason, other than self-interest, why there should be any objections to the notion of opting in to pay towards a political fund. Many people join trade unions to protect their rights, not to prop up the finances of the Labour party. We have evidence from Northern Ireland—it came out earlier in the debate—that, having been asked to choose, only 39% were in favour of paying this political levy. This clause should also be of particular interest to SNP Members, given that many of their supporters in Scotland are no doubt paying the political levy to finance support for the Labour party. Clause 10 will make the act of political donation one of free will, and I see no reason other than self-interest why it should not be supported.
I turn next to clause 12 and the issue of facility time. I believe that in an increasingly transparent world, with the publication by public bodies of items of expenditure over £500, it is only right that trade union activity, effectively subsidised by the taxpayers, is subject to the same scrutiny, particularly at a time of reduced budgets. I know that the vast majority of hard-working taxpayers in my constituency would be outraged if they knew their taxes were being used to support aggressive political campaigns.
I welcome the enhancement of the role of the certification officer, and it is again a common-sense reform for officers to be able to act on information or concerns they have received from a third party. In addition, I welcome the fact that they have specific investigatory powers to regulate trade unions in order to make this legislation workable.
In conclusion, I have been lobbied at great length regarding this Bill, but on close analysis I believe it to be both proportionate and necessary. Trade union members have the right to be protected from being exploited not only by their employer, but by their union bosses who seek to use them to further their own political aims. Given the make-up of the Labour leadership team, this Bill is vital to protect the rights of all working people who seek to go to work, to raise their family and to contribute to this country, free of politically motivated strikes, unnecessary disruption and threats from union officials to topple a democratically elected Government enacting the mandate given to them by the British people as recently as this May. I am therefore happy to endorse the Bill as another step forward to greater economic prosperity for this country.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
We have listened to some good speeches from Members, from both those who disagree with the Bill and those who agree with it.
I have been a trade unionist all my life, starting as a coalminer and member of the National Union of Mineworkers. Before anybody gets up to interrupt me, let me say that I have been on strike only three times in my life. The miners were never fond of going on strike, but when they did, they did.
I was always available to the manager when there was trouble at the pit. He would ring me and get me out of bed—I do not know whether other colleagues have had the same experience—and say, “There’s trouble, can you come across to the pit?” We would get together the lads who were not working, and get them back on their feet and digging coal again. I solved the problem—until the next morning. What we used to say was, “Work under protest; we will have a meeting with the manager tomorrow and solve the argument.” Nine times out of 10, we did. There were not many wildcat strikes in the coal mines, although we did have two or three big strikes.
It has been said many times that this Bill attacks trade unions rather than work with them. In my trade union work, I always found that I could work with the manager. We would have arguments many times, but we came up with an agreement in the end.
We have heard about wildcat strikes, but I am afraid that this Bill might bring them back big style. Once unions are shackled through the ballots and the thresholds, there could be more wildcat strikes, which are worse than organised strikes.
The check-off, the paying-in or the opt-out of the political levy is another issue. That has annoyed me more than anything. The hypocrisy of this Government in trying to stop trade unions paying into the political levy is obvious. The political levy goes not just to the Labour party but to a lot of organisations. It could be asked why the Government are doing this. Perhaps they are trying to stop trade unionists putting money into Labour; perhaps they want to crush the party by stopping its money.
I looked up some companies. I thought, if the Tories are stopping us getting money, what about Amazon, which gave £19 million to the Tories? Then there is the Dell corporation, which gives £7.3 million; Ford motor company, which gives £12 million; and Siemens, which gives £4.7 million—and these are only a few! These are big companies giving money to the Tories—it is their slush bucket.
Mr Campbell
No, I will not.
I sometimes wonder what the shareholders think of those companies. Have they got an opt-out? Have the shareholders got an “in” or “out” vote in the same way as is proposed for the trade unions? Let us be fair. I appreciate that these companies get a lot of money off the Government. I have the figures with me here, showing that these companies are getting subsidies worth £93 billion a year from the taxpayer. We have heard the Tories talking about the taxpayers—the poor taxpayers—but I can tell the poor taxpayers that they are getting diddled. The big companies are getting that much tax off them.
I had a look at the House of Lords.
Mr Campbell
Well, I will be next, but I will not be putting in the money these guys put in! Now we come on to the auction and the Tory slush bucket. Lord Ross has given the Tory party £200,000; Lord Davies, £160,000; Lord Griffin, £250,000—and I could go on and on and on. This is where the Tories get their money from. That is how it goes into the Tory slush bucket, and now they are attacking the trade unions in the check-off and opt-in votes.
Mr Campbell
No. That is the reality and the truth. That is the Tory party—hypocritical.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I rise perhaps in the same spirit as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in that what I have to say may put me out of favour on both sides of the House. I rise as a seemingly rare thing—a Conservative who is a member of a trade union, in my case the teaching union ATL, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers. My reticence stems perhaps from the fact that many would not see the two sitting comfortably together. However, I see no contradiction in being both a Conservative and a member of a trade union. Indeed, although we get little credit for it, it was the Conservative party that first legislated to fully legalise trade unions under Benjamin Disraeli.
I want first to express a general opinion on trade unions before moving on to deal with two particular aspects of the Bill about which I have reservations. A trade union should be, I believe, a body that concerns itself with the rights and welfare of its members. It should be an organisation that strives to improve the working lives of people. It should always seek to work in partnership with employers, engaging in constructive dialogue and discussion. What a trade union should not be is a deliberately destructive force, seeking to hold back the economy of the country and unduly inconvenience, or—worse still—endanger other members of society. The ultimate power of calling a strike should always be the last resort, following exhaustive efforts to seek the resolution of disputes. Let me be clear: the withdrawal of labour is a fundamental right, but it is a right that must be tempered with responsibility.
The Bill contains a number of sensible measures: for example, the expiry of the mandate to strike four months after the date of the ballot, and the prevention of the unacceptable scenario of union bosses using ballots, sometimes years old, to call strikes when the issues at hand, and crucially the opinions of workers, might since have shifted. Also the two-week notice period for employers is welcome, so that proper planning can take place. Furthermore, I support the Government’s view that the political contributions of union members should constitute an act of free will, which is not the case under the current arrangements.
My first reservation about the Bill—and I am grateful for the Minister’s consideration of it—concerns “facility time”, which clause 12(8) defines as paid time in which union representatives can undertake unions duties and activities. I am concerned about the fact that “facility time” conflates trade union “duties” and trade union “activities”. It should be clear that such time should not be used for political activities such as the organisation of strikes and political lobbying, but should meet the genuine need for union representatives to be involved in important HR issues between individual union members and employers.
I suggest to the Minister that seeking to reduce “facility time” by publicising it, which does not take account of its exact nature, poses a risk that genuine HR matters may be unfairly neglected. I think that the Bill should clarify the position by making a subtle but important distinction between the sub-types of facility time, which should be carried through to the point of publication that the Bill stipulates. Such a clarification would surely be in line with the spirit of a measure that is, after all, designed to promote transparency and public scrutiny of “facility time”.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the same argument should apply to the Bill’s provisions on health and safety regulations?
William Wragg
I consider health and safety to be a union duty rather than a union activity, so I agree with that.
Surely transparency can only be enhanced by the introduction of an additional layer of detail, rather than the conflation which I fear could arise from the Bill’s current wording.
My second concern relates to the possibility of the use of agency workers to cover striking workers. I agree with every word that was said about it by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), and I urge the Government not to go down that path.
Having raised those issues that concern me, I should add that I am minded to support the Bill, because I believe that we have a Minister who listens and can consider fairly arguments that are put to him in the House. I look forward to further discussions with him.
Let me end by saying that, while the events of the weekend may have revealed the Labour party’s desire to step back into the 1970s and 1980s, thus making themselves a political irrelevance, we Conservatives must show ourselves to be beyond that. We must show ourselves to be reasonable, responsible and, above all, relevant to the needs of the country. Yes, that means reform of the trade unions; but we must be careful not to be seen to erode fundamental rights and liberties of workers who are the foundation of our economy. We must look at measures objectively, and not risk fighting the battles of the past.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I have great experience of much of what is in the Bill. I have been on picket lines on countless occasions, and I have been assaulted on picket lines on numerous occasions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I have taken part in strikes many, many times, as a representative and as a worker in the coal mines in Northumberland—and yes, those may not have been just day strikes; they may have lasted a lot longer. I have probably been on strike more than any of the 649 other Members of Parliament, apart from my hon. Friend. I have been involved in the check-off system, and I have been involved with certification officers. I have been hauled before them as a trade union representative, and I have defended people through them. I have vast experience of these matters.
This piece of proposed legislation is not really about picket lines, armbands and social media. In my view, it represents a savage industrial provocation that is rarely seen or experienced in any modern democracy. These measures are simply headline-catching bolt-ons, designed, like the proverbial three-card trick, to distract—in a very Tory tradition—those who show an interest from the true meaning of the legislation. Quite simply, the Bill seeks to crush the last vestiges of dissent against an increasingly authoritarian right-wing Government.
Let us look at the dubious record of the Prime Minister and his “compassionate” Conservatives during the last Parliament. It can be seen very clearly. It is a record of mass privatisation—of the Prison Service, the probation service and Royal Mail—and the carving up of the national health service to near destruction, the introduction of the bedroom tax, the butchering of council budgets in poorer areas, and the slashing of social security for the most vulnerable. And what happened to those who dared to stand up against the Tory agenda? They were gagged as a result of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
The Bill is an affront to democracy. It is simply part 2 of that gagging Act, and goodness knows what will happen in part 3. It is designed to tie the hands and close the mouths of trade unions and their members, and to slit the throats of the parliamentary Opposition while the Tories hack their way to a state shrunken by their crass and flawed ideology. It is designed to ease through swingeing cuts in the public sector with no organised opposition, to proliferate the low-wage economy, and to help the Tories’ friends and donors to make millions on the back of a disorganised, downtrodden and low-paid work force. Working people will risk criminal records simply to oppose this disgraceful Government.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who said that bits of the Bill were over the top—for instance, the requirement for pickets to give their names to the police. What is this, he asked—Franco’s Britain? No, it is Queen Elizabeth II’s Britain. I fully agree with that.
As for the issue of people attending picket lines and putting on armbands, numerous Members have said that it would be far better to put on a shirt that read “Blacklist me—I do not want further employment.” Why not put a target on the back, and then put on a big hat? And as for the issue of agency workers, I can see a problem with people on benefits who will be sanctioned if they do not agree to be bussed into places where there are disputes, and to break strikes.
The Bill is part of a jigsaw of legislation that the Government have forced through during more than one parliamentary term. They are extending the role of the certification officer in regulating trade unions, which includes the granting of a new power to impose fines. That simply means the introduction of a new trade union tax: the unions will have to pay for the investigatory powers of the certification officer. It is ludicrous, and it is against democracy.
I believe that the Government clearly understand that the Bill is in breach of the European convention on human rights. It is in breach of a number of European articles, and it is in breach of the International Labour Organisation convention. The Government realise that, but they believe that if they get the Bill through, appeal after appeal will mean that any decision will not be made for years to come.
The Bill must be opposed. It seeks to destroy freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to hold a view in the workplace. It must be killed.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I echo comments that have been made by Members on both sides of the House. Without our trade unions, Britain would not have become the strong nation that it is today. In securing legal representation for employees suffering discrimination and safer working conditions for their members, our nation’s unions have much in their history of which to be proud.
In my own rural constituency, I work closely with the National Farmers Union to back British farmers effectively. I would not support a Bill that stopped trade unions playing any of those constructive roles, because I believe that they are a valuable part of our society. That, however, is not the Bill that is before us; it is quite the opposite. This Bill does not make our trade unions weaker; in the long term it will help them be stronger by making them more transparent, more legitimate and, most of all, more democratic. The greatest danger unions in this country face is not from the legislators of this House; it is from the loss of the public’s trust. Unions have always been powerful advocates for their members’ rights, but it is important that we find a balance between the right of union members to strike and the rights of millions of working people to access the vital public services they rely on and to go about their daily lives without disruption. When 450,000 teachers go on strike in England, more than 8 million children are affected—millions of working families where mums or dads have to take a day off work.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the use of the terms “working families” and “working people” as if people who are involved in trade unions are not good working people is offensive—just as offensive as this Bill is?
Rishi Sunak
I completely reject those comments. There is nothing in this Bill that is offensive: it is a moderate Bill that is attempting to balance the rights—[Interruption.] Absolutely; it is a moderate Bill that is balancing the right to strike with the rights of people who are trying to earn a living in difficult circumstances, and trying to get to work or go about their daily business. When my constituents’ lives are disrupted and they express that frustration to me, I want to be able to tell them, because they want to be able to be sure, that that disruption was genuinely a last resort and a serious matter supported by a strong and continuous mandate. I do not want to have to tell them that their lives were seriously inconvenienced by a strike supported by just 22% of members almost two years ago.
Unions were created to give the weak more power against the strong, yet too often we find that strike action can hit the most vulnerable the hardest. When vital public services are put out of action, it is not well-paid corporate executives who suffer; it is someone doing less well-paid shift work, because if they cannot make it to work, they will not get paid. That is who I am thinking of when I think about the provisions in this Bill.
Despite the scaremongering, this Bill does nothing to prohibit strike action. Instead it simply ensures that the right to strike is balanced with the rights of people who are affected by strikes and have no say in whether or not they will happen. It ensures that those strikes are the result of a clear and positive democratic mandate from members. To me, this balance appears reasonable, fair and necessary.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the context of this Bill is that it is intended to deal with the problem of a 77% increase in the loss of working days over recent times? Last year alone the number of days lost to industrial action was higher than the average of the 1990s and 2000s.
Rishi Sunak
I agree with my hon. Friend. In today’s world, it is important that we maintain a competitive economy and increase employment, and having trade union legislation that is updated for that modern economy is vital if trade unions are to ensure their relevance in today’s economy.
Rishi Sunak
I am sorry, but I would like to make some progress.
I was proud to see that it was the original one nation Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli who first legalised the picket line. That is a legacy that I, and I am sure my colleagues on the Front Bench, have no intention of turning away from. In fact I commend the majority of unions who work successfully with the police and other authorities to ensure safe, lawful and constructive picket lines. But if those picket lines become a means to intimidate non-striking workers and impact their families, something has gone wrong. Intimidation or harassment of individuals is simply not acceptable in today’s Britain.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rishi Sunak
I am sorry but I am keen to carry on.
Therefore it is right that key provisions in the existing picketing code become legally binding. It is right that unions are accountable for the behaviour of their picket lines, to tackle this problem of intimidation, otherwise I fear the reprehensible actions of a few—a tiny minority—will undermine the lawful, peaceful reputation of the vast majority of unions and their members.
In sum, this Bill ensures that unions can continue to play a valuable role, doing the work they do best while operating with the transparency, fairness and democracy they need to retain the public’s confidence. This is not a Bill against trade unions; it is a moderate Bill that balances the rights of unions and people working across this country, and I commend it to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab
: I have been a trade unionist since I was 18 and am currently a member of Unison. I have also spent six weeks on strike. My then young family suffered the consequences and we got into debt as a result. It took a while for us to recover, but recover we did, and we benefited in the longer term after the dispute was settled. Nobody wants to strike. I had two young boys and I went on strike not for the fun of it, nor in some bizarre attempt to damage my employer or his customers, but because my employer was being unjust and it took a walk-out for him to come to his senses and offer a fair wage settlement.
The law allowed us to strike, but only after we had cleared the hurdles or met the criteria laid down by the then new Thatcher Tory union legislation. We did not like Thatcher’s restrictions but we worked within them. The Tories of the day thought they were balanced and provided protection for the employers and the wider public; I thought they were extreme. But now the current Tory Government want to impose more restrictions, which could see local unpaid trade unionists dragged into court for all manner of reasons including placing messages on Facebook or Twitter without giving the requisite notice demanded by the Government.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that every time the Tories come to Parliament to introduce these sorts of powers, which are ever-more draconian, they always say they are balanced and reasonable?
Alex Cunningham
They certainly do, and they have said the same of this legislation today.
The Tories have made a big thing about opposing identity cards, but now demand that trade unionists have them as well as armbands to help single them out, yet it is unclear how compliance with these and other requirements are connected to the prevention of intimidation of non-striking workers. Laws already exist which prevent that and unions must comply with a detailed statutory code of practice.
Peaceful protest is an important part of an open and democratic society, and there should be no place for a law that makes criminals of people making their voices heard in this way. But the Minister’s eagerness to undermine the trades unions, and put limits on their members’ rights to freedom of expression, makes me wonder exactly what it is that he is scared of. Perhaps this is just a mechanism to sting the unions in the pocket and to silence the inevitable protests that will come as the Government continue to erode the rights of workers and screw down pay, particularly in the public sector.
Let us not forget that public sector workers in particular are already under the cosh. The recently announced extension of pay restraint will hurt these workers for a further four years, with most having already been hit pretty hard with poorer deals on pensions, and many others now facing the prospect of losing their job as deeper cuts to the public sector continue to bite.
The ability of workers to withdraw labour is fundamental to our democracy and I am not aware of any democracy elsewhere in the world that imposes such severe restrictions on legitimate industrial action. It is worth remembering that the UK already has one of the most regulated systems of industrial action in the world.
The Bill dictates that industrial action, including strike action, will only be lawful if a minimum 50% turnout among those trade union members entitled to vote is achieved, while additionally requiring 40% of those members balloted to vote in favour of industrial action across what the Government term “important public services”. This term is of great significance. The Tory manifesto, as well as the subsequent Queen’s Speech briefings, stated that the 40% requirement would apply only to four “essential public services”: health, fire, transport and education services. Yet the Government have now extended this list to include other sectors, such as border security, the decommissioning of nuclear installations and the management of radioactive waste.
I would also welcome any clarity the Minister can provide around how he intends to escape the inevitable confusion arising when attempting to ballot a workplace where some occupations are covered by the “important public services” provisions and others are not. Will the Minister give further details on the requirement for “reasonably detailed” information to be provided on ballot papers? If a failure to provide such information is to be a basis for legal action by employers against workers taking industrial action, it is crucial that the House should be informed in advance of how “reasonably detailed” is to be defined.
The Government also peddle the claim that the 40% requirement will legitimise any ballot outcome. Have they considered what that would have meant if applied to them in the ballots they faced just a few months ago? I have, and it is a fact that 16 of the 27 Ministers who attend Cabinet would never have been returned to Parliament if they had needed 40% of their total electorate to vote for them.
The Bill will create substantial legal and administrative costs for unions, which will be required to report annually to the certification officer on levels of industrial action and on how political funds have been used. This is on top of additional cost burdens elsewhere, should the changes to check-off procedures and facility time pass unamended. There is no parity under these rules with the functions of other civil society or campaign groups. If the political use of union funds has to be reported regularly and in detail, perhaps we should have a parallel system for those companies whose donations fund the Tory party. They, too, should be compelled to outline in similar detail to shareholders, at regular intervals, how they have spent their money funding their friends on the Government Benches.
In relation to modernisation, the last Tory-Lib Dem Government continued the good progress made by Labour to promote e-government and all manner of new ways of doing business more efficiently. Surely our unions should be able to do likewise, with online ballots to maximise participation and ensure a clear mandate for industrial action. Sadly, the Government do not appear to favour that. Will the Minister tell us why not?
The Government claim to be the party of working people, but threatening the right to take industrial action tilts the balance of power in the workplace too far in favour of employers. It will mean that workers are unable to stand up for decent services and safety at work, or to defend their jobs or pay. It is clear that the Government are not interested in encouraging workplace democracy. Instead, they are attempting to prevent midwives, firefighters, teachers and cleaners from protesting against cuts in jobs, pay and conditions. I find this unacceptable, and I very much hope that the Government will reconsider these calamitous proposals.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I shall begin by declaring an interest. I also have a family link to trade unions: my grandfather was a trade union activist. He was known as Red Harry, and his obituary appeared in Socialist Worker. I mention him not only to declare an interest but to draw attention to what has changed in our industrial relations. When he was a trade union activist, during the first half of the last century, the principal conflict was between workers and capital. Much was achieved by the combined work of the Labour party and the trade unions in enhancing workers’ rights, but Labour Members, some of whom tend to use rather over-the-top language, should recognise that things have changed quite a lot in the past 50 or 60 years.
When trade unions choose to go on strike, it is often other workers who are adversely affected by the industrial action. The Conservatives are a party of workers, which is why we have committed ourselves to introducing a national living wage, to increasing the tax allowance for the lowest earners so that they can earn money tax-free, and to providing people with free childcare. As part of that commitment to workers, we also need to think about the impact of strikes on other workers.
Let me give the House an example from my constituency. If a teachers’ strike is called, it is other workers who feel the consequences. The working lives of the mums and dads are disrupted. They have to pay for alternative childcare and go through the stress and hassle of not being able to pick up their children from school and not knowing who will do so. It is right that we should balance the interests of the two groups of workers.
Mhairi Black
Saying that strikes are disruptive is not an argument against trade unions. They are meant to cause some kind of disruption, in order to show how strongly people feel and the lengths they are prepared to go to.
Oliver Dowden
Of course strikes are intended to be disruptive, but one of the fallacies that has been put forward by Labour Members is that the Bill proposes to take away people’s right to strike. It simply seeks to balance the interests of the workers in the trade union against those of other workers who are subjected to the effects of the strike.
Kirsten Oswald
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has suggested that the Bill is dealing with problems of the past and has nothing to do with the current situation?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady might say that, but recent analysis shows that in the past four years, 3 million days have been lost to strike action. I am not content with the impact of that on my constituents. Hertsmere is close to London, and when there is a tube strike or a train strike, my constituents are massively adversely affected. I am not saying that that should never happen, but the Bill will rightly set a balance in three important respects.
First, the Bill states that if a strike is to be called, there will have to be a vote of at least 50% in favour of it. If the strike action is to be taken by those working in core public services, such as transport or education, four out of every 10 people in that union will have to vote in favour of it. Contrary to the assertions of Labour Members, this will not stop strikes happening. Indeed, the latest analysis shows that between 50% and 60% of strikes would still go ahead under the new legislation, but we must rebalance the interests of the workers who are trying to serve their communities with those who are going on strike.
The second important principle relates to workers in my constituency and elsewhere who are members of trade unions but who do not necessarily share the goals of the Labour party.
Grahame M. Morris
Many of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have made that same point about strike ballots, using the transport strikes in London as an illustration. The truth is, however, that the legislation will not make any difference. The ballots held by ASLEF and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers have huge turnouts, and their members are expressing legitimate concerns about safety and manning levels that many of the travelling public share. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has used the tube recently, but the stations are being denuded of the human beings who used to be there to offer assistance. This measure will do nothing to help that position. In fact, it will make matters worse.
Oliver Dowden
Labour Members cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot simultaneously say that this is an horrendous piece of legislation that will stop all strike action while also saying that it will have no effect. The hon. Gentleman should choose one line of argument or the other. Teachers would certainly be subject to the legislation, and their last strike would have been affected by measures such as these.
I was talking about people in my constituency who are members of trade unions. There are important reasons for being a member of a union. For people who are the subject of unfair dismissal, for example, a trade union can often be a good source of advice and information. People join unions for a variety of reasons, but they often do not wish to give money to the Labour party. There should be a simple principle that if a union wishes to give the party money, its members should be able actively to choose to do so, in much the same way as if they were making a direct donation to the party. I see no unfairness in that. I am simply saying that if people support the Labour party, they should be able to choose to give it money.
Thirdly, the Bill works to redress the balance between striking and non-striking workers through the proposals to minimise the disruption caused by strike action. It is perfectly sensible to require 14 days’ notice of a strike. It would also be sensible, for example, that if the teachers at my daughter’s school were to go on strike, agency workers could be brought in so that my children’s education would not be disrupted. Similarly, it would be sensible to bring in agency workers so that commuters from my constituency would not be disrupted by a transport strike. That would not be cost-free to the employer, who would have to pay high rates to employ agency workers at short notice. Interestingly, given where the Labour party is at this stage, Labour Members have a choice: are they going to embrace the modern world and be on the side of workers—people in their constituencies who go out to work every day and do not want to be disrupted —or are they going to go back to the same old arguments that we thought had been settled 20 or 30 years ago? Interestingly, the measures taken then have never been repealed by the Labour party. I am absolutely clear which side I am on and which side the Conservative party is on. We are on the side of ordinary, hard-working people, while maintaining the right to strike. That is why I shall be voting in favour of this legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just to try to ensure that everybody gets in, with 46 speakers still to come, we are going to have to work with four minutes each. If we can hold to that, we will be doing very well.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in this important debate. It has been interesting listening to the contributions of other hon. Members and, in particular, to the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hope to make a contribution from a slightly different perspective from that of some of my colleagues today.
Before being elected to this place, I spent all my career working in human resource management. In the interests of transparency, I should say that I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. I worked for many years in a job where I sat as part of the management side in negotiations with trade unions, so I come to this debate with an outlook developed at least partly as a result of my professional background. I am contributing as someone who has had to make difficult decisions when dealing with challenging employment issues, including collective redundancy negotiations and industrial action.
I also come here, however, as someone who knows that the most challenging situations and all the difficult discussions were entirely more productive and more effective, and carried more weight, because they were dealt with in partnership with trade unions. I did not always agree with my trade union counterparts, and they certainly did not always agree with me, but that is surely the point: sometimes there will be different perspectives, and that is entirely healthy and appropriate. It is clear that when tough decisions have to be made, communication is the key to an effective and productive workplace culture. We do need to accept, however, that occasionally we will not agree, no matter how much discussion we have had—that is a fact of life—and no Bill will make employers and staff agree on everything.
What this Bill will do is: ensure that any disagreement is squashed by management, without any constructive dialogue; render any dialogue that there is futile; and ensure that the important and constructive voices of staff are lost, drowned in a welter of arguments about minutiae of process or brushed aside. This Bill is a recipe for turning disagreement into conflict, and for escalating a short-term problem into a fundamental break in relationships in the workplace. Interfering in the employment relationship with this restrictive and provocative Bill is a backward step. It appears to be driven more by ideology, and by malice towards trade unions and their members, than by any desire to improve industrial relations.
We have already heard about the leading academics in industrial relations who wrote to the newspapers describing the proposals as “draconian” and “perverse”. They recognise the positive contributions of unions to performance, improvement and innovation in the workplace, and they decry the Government’s proposals as undermining the ability of unions to protect terms and conditions, and leading to the loss of employee voice. They are right to point out that this Bill will also have an impact on those who are not members of trade unions. They say that
“it will feed into the labour market by increasing endemic low pay and insecure terms and conditions of employment among non-unionised workers.”
Even the Chancellor is now persuaded that low pay is a problem that we have to grapple with, so we must wonder why the Government are so keen to introduce this Bill. If they were serious about looking at the relationships between employees and their representatives, they would focus on how to engage and involve employees and unions in increasing productivity, through fairer and supportive rights for workers. If we look at the current levels of industrial action, as summarised by the Library, we see that it is difficult to fathom what reasons, other than ideological ones, the Government can possibly have for seeking to make these changes. The Government sell themselves as being interested in productivity and business, but these proposals run entirely contrary to that ethos. The Bill introduces unnecessary new and complex bureaucracy: it will increase costs for unions and employers, as legal disputes develop; and it undermines social justice. If this Bill is passed, and I sincerely hope that it is not—
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). I am delighted to have been able to sit through this debate, because once one gets over the bluster and extreme rhetoric one sees that points have been made by Members on both sides that will be helpful to the Minister in examining the Bill in detail as he takes it into Committee. We have heard about the Bill’s importance for union leadership, for union members and, most importantly, for the public as a whole, but I come to this House with a background in business, so I wish to make a couple of comments from its perspective.
The issues that affect people in a strike come from a breakdown in a partnership between those who operate businesses and the people who work within them. The most important criterion for business is that private sector businesses have benefited tremendously from a 30-year consensus on the way in which industrial relations have operated in this country. It is therefore important for business to hear from this House today that that consensus, on both sides of the House, both today and in the months ahead, is continuing as far as it can.
Secondly, it is important to point out the difference between what has occurred during that period of consensus in the private sector and what has happened in the public sector. In the last four years of the last millennium—1996 to 1999—there were 199,000 days lost from private sector strikes, compared with 278,000 from public sector strikes. In the past four years—2010 to 2014—the number for the private sector had more than halved, to 74,000, whereas the figure for the public sector had more than doubled, to 573,000. Something in this consensus is working in the private sector but not working so well in the public sector. A particular issue is that in three of the past five years one area of the public sector, education, accounted for more than 50% of public sector strikes.
I ask the Minister to consider some specific points. First, on the issue of the 40% additional threshold, I am pleased that the Government are looking at consultation, but the points made about the ability of the union leadership to control and minimise wildcat strikes do carry quite a weight. It would be interesting for the Minister to consider whether the notice period of 14 days before strike action will achieve most of the goals that are seen as required for that 40% threshold. May I encourage the Minister to include in clause 6(1), on information to the certification officer, a provision about the outcome of the industrial action? That information is useful for members, too. If they are asked to go on strike, they should know what the consequence of the strike was—what they achieved by it—so they can see whether such action is playing a good role.
There are extensive new roles for the certification officer, and business would like to be assured that this will not lead to additional disclosure requirements on business in the future. An industrial dispute still has two sides; one may be out on strike but the other side is dealing with that strike. We are placing information requirements on the trade union, but will there be a need for any similar information requirements on or disclosure by business?
Finally, on privacy and free speech, will the ministerial team listen carefully to the points that have been made, because we do not want trade unionists going about their business in towns across the country inadvertently finding themselves criminalised? I am sure that that, on its own, would undermine the consensus. I hope the Minister will examine those points carefully in Committee.
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
This is a Bill of naked discrimination against the trade unions, designed to cut the funding of the Labour party severely and, thus, to entrench the Tory party in power, as well as to make it almost impossible to strike in certain industrial sectors. However, it is worth quoting the stated purposes of the Bill, which the Government pretend are their motives. The first is to
“pursue our ambition to become the most prosperous major economy in the world by 2030”.
That is beyond satire. The truth is that after seven years of austerity following the great crash wages are still 6% below pre-crash levels, productivity is flat, the FTSE 100 companies are not investing and household debt is now tipping £2 trillion. The idea that after this Bill we will be overtaking Germany and the United States in the next 15 years is ludicrous.
The Government’s second “reason” for this Bill is to
“ensure hardworking people are not disrupted by little-supported strike action”.
The best answer to that was that given by The Times commentator, Philip Collins, on the day the Bill was presented, on 15 July. He said:
“Strike action, fox hunting, the BBC, Europe, migrant benefits. The Tory ability to identify things that are not problems, then attack them.”
The truth is that the number of days lost to strike action now is less than one tenth of what it was in the 1980s. Of far greater importance to the state of the economy is the chronic underinvestment in skills. This Bill, while obnoxious, is utterly irrelevant to the key problems of this country. The tube workers aside, only teachers and firefighters have caused any real national concern since 2010, and even they normally did so only one day at a time. Even the resistance of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers to plans for keeping the underground open all night are not that unreasonable. Night shifts are unsociable, unhealthy and potentially dangerous as they lead to over-tiredness. But the central point here is not acknowledged in the Bill. The Government seem to believe that whenever a strike occurs, it is always the fault of the workers irrespective of what the employer has done.
It is true that most employers are probably decent and reasonable, but there are a distinct minority of them who are intransigent and who behave thoroughly unreasonably and badly. To penalise and intimidate workers in such cases, when it is the employer who has overwhelmingly caused the breakdown in industrial relations, is wholly unfair and wrong. The last thing that the workers want to do is to go on strike, but when they have genuine, reasonable and pressing demands over such essential issues such as job losses, safety problems and pay, and those demands are swept to one side, as they often are, with little or no negotiation, they have no alternative but to take industrial action. To blame and penalise them and not bad management, as the Tory party and its pals in the media automatically do, is a total charade. The conditions for industrial action are prohibitive. The net effect of all these measures is to make it impossible to strike.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I was there in the 1980s, studying at the London School of Economics—the so-called hotbed of socialism. I had the T-shirt that proclaimed, “The LSE is revolting”. Today, we see that those on the left are at it again. They love a revolution, but this time they could not even convince their Front-Bench Members—well, they are on the Front Bench now—to follow them. Saturday’s leadership election result underlined the fact that the policies of Labour’s new Front-Bench team are a clear threat not only to our national security but to our economic recovery. With the increase in union influence that will inevitably follow, this Trade Union Bill will be more relevant than ever before, and I commend the foresight of those Ministers who drafted it.
I understand that unions have an important role to play in the workplace for their regular members. That was clearly evident in Bosley, following a pretty tragic explosion on 17 July at Wood Treatment Ltd. Four people lost their lives and two others are still recovering from severe burns. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with them and their families and friends. The response from the emergency services has been professional and courageous. The local council has been proactive, which is greatly appreciated by many. The response from the community in Bosley and across Macclesfield has been absolutely top drawer, with more than £150,000 raised for those affected by the incident. It would be wrong if I did not also recognise the important work of the GMB in providing advice and support to those who have sadly lost their jobs. It has been greatly appreciated. The support underlines the good work that many unions are able to do on behalf of their members. The reforms before us will help and support regular union members who come up against the worst excesses of those on the left who put firebrand politics first.
We on the Conservative Benches pledged in our manifesto to tackle this issue, and I am pleased that the Conservative Government have put this Bill before the House so speedily. Clause 2 introduces a 50% voting threshold, which is essential to ensure that a small vocal minority is not able to exert undue influence in often quite tense industrial disputes. It is right that there is a second test, particularly in the more essential public services. Disproportionate disruption can be caused to people who have no say in the calling of that strike. It is important that we ensure that the rights of those who use the service—the public—are taken into account just as much as those who are calling the strike, particularly given the recent tube strikes. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) talked about inconvenience of the strike, but the truth was that there was massive disruption that cost tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds. Such things need to be borne in the mind and dealt with, which is what this Bill seeks to do.
We need to look at minimum service levels. I understand that the Government are looking at the experiences in Italy and Spain, and I encourage them to take that matter forward. It is positive too that we are looking to end the ban on using agency workers. We must ensure that public services are provided for those who have paid for them—the taxpayer. This Bill will help to take our economy forward, and for that reason it has my full support this evening.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of Unite the union. The Bill exposes the Government’s self-appointed title as the workers’ party and their claim to be the party for working people as little more than empty rhetoric devised by the spin doctors at Tory HQ. It is a total misnomer to claim to be the party for working people while simultaneously steamrolling over those very workers’ democratic rights and civil liberties.
Last year, Pope Francis said:
“Trade unions have been an essential force for social progress, without which a semblance of a decent and humane society is impossible under capitalism.”
The trade union movement in the UK, independent of the Labour party and with the Labour party, is responsible for the fundamental gains of working people, many of which we now take for granted, including the weekend, maternity leave, the national health service and the national minimum wage.
The role of trade unions in society as a counterweight to the pressures of capital is essential for the protection of decent standards of living as well as a driver of economic growth. That was true in the 19th century and the 20th century and it is true now.
The Government are carrying out this attack on trade unions not for practical reasons supported by evidence, but out of their ideological commitment to fighting the battles of generations past and to pursuing their mission to weaken and destroy the labour and trade union movement. Let us make no mistake about it, the purpose of requiring union members to opt in to political funds is to attack and damage the finances of the Labour party so as to make the Conservative party’s financial advantage even greater than it already is. If this Bill passes, it would break a long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government should not introduce partisan legislation unfairly to disadvantage other political parties. Here in this House in 1948 Winston Churchill cautioned against taking such steps. He said:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties or by conferences under the impartial guidance of Mr. Speaker.”—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859.]
Even Margaret Thatcher, a Prime Minister whose term was defined by her opposition to the trade union movement, considered the proposals such as the ones set out in this Bill to be too extreme. She said that
“legislation on this subject, which would affect the funding of the Labour party, would create great unease and should not be entered into lightly.”
She was not wrong. This Bill will create great unease and for once in my life I find myself in total agreement with Mrs T.
These proposals are so unreasonable and extreme that they will undoubtedly raise the serious prospect of legal challenge. The interference of the state in the affairs of trade unions is counter to article 11 of the European convention on human rights. We are signatories to the European social charter and as a nation we agreed in article 5 that our national laws would not restrict the freedom of workers to form and join organisations for the protection of their economic and social interests. The Bill directly contravenes our country’s commitment under the charter.
Our rights were not handed down from above; they were fought for tooth and nail, often against Conservative Governments. Government Members should be aware that those rights will not be given up easily. If the Government continue with their authoritarian plan to abuse their time in office by attacking our democratic rights, they would be wise to remember that for every action there is a reaction. I hope that wiser counsel from their Back Benches will prevail in bringing their Front Benchers back from the brink.
This is a vindictive Bill that is designed not to address a social, moral or economic priority, but to fundamentally damage political opposition. It is more than a step too far. If the Government do not reconsider—
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow that thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), particularly as he quoted Margaret Thatcher with approval.
The history of trade unions is an honourable one, arising in the late 19th century, when workers were suffering from widespread oppression. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, trade unions performed vital functions. It is worth remembering, of course, that many of those functions are now fulfilled by Parliament; it has legislated for a national minimum wage, provision for sickness and holiday payments, protection against unfair dismissal and so on. Therefore, many of the injustices that trade unions quite rightly fought against at the outset have now been dealt with by Parliament. I want to emphasise that the right to strike and the right for trade unions to operate are in no way threatened by the Bill. The right to strike will still exist, as it absolutely should.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) both asked the question, “What is the purpose of this legislation?” Its principal purpose is to protect people who suffer when strikes take place. Let me quote a lady from Stoke-on-Trent who runs a hairdressing salon and has a child:
“It isn’t fair on parents, who could be missing out on a day’s pay by not working when teachers strike.”
Strikes have a profound effect on other members of society, which is why it is appropriate to put in place a reasonable threshold before strike action can be taken. For example, exactly a year ago Unison’s NHS staff voted for strike action on a turnout of 16% and with 11% of the membership voting in favour. I do not think that mandate is strong enough to merit inconveniencing tens of thousands of patients and potentially having operations postponed.
Furthermore, since 2008 there have been 26 strikes on the London underground—I am a London MP, and I have lived in this city all my life. Anyone who claims that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers does not strike lightly has not tried to travel in this city during one of those 26 strikes. I point out that 19 of those strikes would not have happened under this legislation.
Catherine West
But does the hon. Gentleman accept that those strikes have tripled since the Tories took over in London in 2008? It is an absolute disgrace that the Mayor of London has never sat down and met the trade unions and treated them as though they were equal partners or human beings in the same race.
Chris Philp
I think that it is very unfortunate that the RMT has chosen to be so confrontational. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) pointed out earlier, even his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, met RMT officials only once, and he insulted them in the meeting.
Questions were asked earlier about the mandate for this legislation. I remind those Members who oppose the Bill that a YouGov poll conducted only four weeks ago found that 53% of Londoners are in favour of these measures and only 26% are opposed. Moreover, I challenge the assertion made by some Opposition Members that union activity does not stoke excessive strike action. It is instructive to compare days lost due to strike action in the private sector, where union membership is relatively low, with days lost in the public sector, where union membership is more widespread. We find that last year the number was 40 times higher in the public sector than it was in the private sector, despite the fact that terms and conditions—pay, holidays and so on—are, if anything, slightly better in the public sector.
I would like briefly to address the issue of facility time. The TaxPayers Alliance—[Interruption]—which clearly commands widespread support on the Opposition Benches, has calculated that the effective subsidy to unions from the public purse as a result of facility time is £108 million every year. The unions do not necessarily need that money—they have plenty of money to make political donations with—and it is not reasonable for the public purse to fund what is often party political activity.
In conclusion, I think that the Bill is a reasonable, moderate measure that will protect people from the often very disruptive effects of strike action.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the fact that I am a member of the GMB and Unison.
This Bill is illegal, illiberal and illiterate: illegal because it contravenes international standards; illiberal because it takes a hatchet to civil liberties; and illiterate because it is badly drafted and will leave the law in a mess, creating uncertainty and cost not only for trade unions, but for employers. The reason it is so badly drafted is that it is a crudely partisan measure that the Conservative party is seeking to rush through for purely political ends.
Why are we debating the Bill today? Is there any urgency for these provisions, or any demand resulting from the parliamentary timetable? No, there is not. We all know why we are here today. We are here today because the Government deliberately timetabled the Bill’s Second Reading to coincide with the first full day of the Trades Union Congress, when those MPs who are proud trade unionists, as I am, would have been in Brighton talking with working people about the issues that really matter, such as low pay, zero-hours contracts, inequality and insecurity at work. Instead, we are here to discuss this shabby, shameful Bill. That shows the Government’s contempt not only for trade unions, but for democracy.
The Bill was published on 16 July. Consultations were scheduled to take place over the summer recess and closed only five days ago. This debate was scheduled for today even though the Bill is incomplete and the Government have accepted that it will require many amendments. The clearest example of that is on the deduction of union subscriptions. On 6 August the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General announced the Government’s intention
“to abolish the practice of checkoff across all public sector organisations”.
He announced that those changes would be in the Bill, so where are they? Where are the proposals and the draft clauses? They are nowhere to be seen. There is neither a timetable for publication of those clauses, nor a commitment to any period of consultation. The Bill is a disgraceful attack on the right of employers and unions to freely negotiate arrangements that best secure constructive industrial relations.
Before being elected to this House, I was a director of a significant private sector employer, responsible for industrial relations with around 1,000 members of staff. We recognised a trade union to represent our staff, to collectively bargain on their behalf, to represent their interests and to ensure that we could discuss with them any changes necessary for the continued success of the business in the best interests of staff. To do that, we had check-off and facility time in place. As we have heard from many Members today, deductions from payroll are a common way for employers to help employees with regular payments. Many Members make payments to charity through our payroll and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. It is good enough for them, but it seems that it will not be good enough for trade union members. Check-off arrangements worked for us as an employer and for our staff, and it was freely agreed. Many employers in both the private and public sectors feel the same.
I will finish with a point about devolution and the inadequacies of the Bill. The Bill deals with public services that are devolved to Wales, including the way public sector bodies work with trade unions to ensure effective delivery of services to the public, including my constituents in Cardiff Central. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to heed the warning from my Labour colleague, the First Minister of Wales, that there are necessary and critically important changes that must be made to the Bill. But I would go further. It is an unnecessary, dangerous and flawed Bill.
Jo Stevens
I will not give way.
I urge the Government to listen not only to me and to my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, but to the business community, civil liberties organisations, respected academics, trade unions and, most importantly, the public—
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on reforming and modernising our trade unions and helping to secure Britain’s economic recovery.
Trade unions have an incredibly important and constructive role to play in terms of industrial relations, helping their members, and as a part of wider civil society. For generations, trade unions have played an important role at the heart of their communities and in many workplaces, offering services from education and training to legal and financial assistance. For that reason, there are trade union members in all parts of the House, including my own.
However, trade unions are also powerful, well-funded organisations that must accept that power, wealth and influence come with responsibility and accountability. We must therefore balance their rights with those of working people, communities and businesses that have the right to expect that the services they rely on day in, day out are not disrupted at short notice by strikes supported by only a small proportion of union members. Similarly, there must be clear and positive mandates for any disruptive union action, as well as reform of trade union practices such as funding, picketing and use of facility time. This Bill sets out those necessary reforms.
Equally importantly, these Government reforms strengthen Britain’s economic competitiveness on the world stage. Britain is in a global race for success, engaged in a big fight not only with established economies in Europe and north America but fast-growing economies in Asia, Latin America and Africa. To build a strong and growing economy and, in turn, a more prosperous and fair society, we need employers that are open for business, schools and colleges that are not closed by strikes, and transport systems that let our commuters, visitors and shoppers go about their business.
Last-minute strikes and poor trade union practices hurt Britain’s productivity and growth at home and hinder our competitiveness abroad. The reforms in this Bill are welcome, beginning with reform of balloting for strikes. Strikes should only ever be a last resort and held as a result of a clear, positive decision. I therefore welcome the measures in the Bill to provide more clarity and democracy. The Bill will improve trade union practices and increase transparency. I particularly commend three measures: first, time-limited mandates, which will improve clarity and democratic legitimacy; secondly, the requirement for a clear description of the planned industrial action, which is fair and reasonable; and thirdly, the proposal for a new, transparent opt-in system for political subscriptions, which is welcome.
A poll by the Federation of Small Businesses found that last year’s strike action on the London underground cost about £600 million in lost hours, lost business, and lost productivity. Across Britain this year, we have again seen the shut-down of the London underground, strikes on ferries in western Scotland, strikes on trains on the First Great Western network, and strikes on buses in Cardiff, with future strikes potentially affecting the rugby world cup.
Oliver Dowden
Does my hon. Friend agree that often it is not trade union members in general who cause these strikes to happen, but a very small, politically motivated number of union organisers, and that is why it is right to have the threshold in the Bill?
Mr Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for his positive intervention; I completely agree. It is members of trade unions, who are working people, that the Bill seeks to protect.
The cost of this last-minute, poorly supported industrial action is substantial. It hurts our economy at home and hinders our competitiveness on the world stage. If we are to run and win the global race for success in an increasingly competitive global market, we need our shops and businesses to be open, generating wealth; we need our students and apprentices at school or college learning and developing the skills to win; and we need our workers and communities on the move, not stuck at home. We simply cannot afford the lost wealth that poorly supported strikes cause.
Trade unions have a constructive role to play, but like all organisations they must modernise, move with the times, and accept that with power and influence comes the need for more accountability and more transparency.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman give some recent examples of “last-minute” industrial action?
Mr Mak
Anyone who has used the London underground will know that the trade unions strike on a whim and compromise the ability of shoppers, businesses and investors to go about their business. That is why it is right that the Bill brings in measures to make sure that that can never happen in future.
This Bill balances the rights of trade unions with those of working people, commuters and businesses. It also creates a new framework of industrial relations that allows Britain to grow at home and makes sure our economy is strong while competing and succeeding on the world stage. The Bill deserves the support of the whole House, and I commend it to all hon. Members.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Over the course of history, the workplace has been the scene of many grave injustices: slavery, child labour, squalid and dangerous working conditions, and desperately low pay. A lot of that has been eradicated, although sadly not for all in the United Kingdom.
Even in the modern workplace, there still exists an imbalance of power between the employer, who can decide, often unilaterally, on terms, conditions and pay, and the employee, who is dependent on the employer for work. Individuals who want to negotiate with their employer to improve their lot may not have direct access to them or fear recriminations if they approach them alone. That is well known in this House, as it should be. In a world where there is always someone else available to do a job, potentially for less money, this power structure can lead to poor pay, unsafe conditions, discrimination, and exploitation.
In the UK, a lot of the bad things have been got rid of because of what the unions and other campaigning organisations have done. Even so, only a short time ago we were legislating against modern-day slavery. We have made changes in this House in relation to employment tribunals and unfair dismissals. The reintroduction of charges on individuals who want to claim for unfair dismissal has reduced the number of such claims by 70%.
Andy McDonald
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that successive Conservative Members have praised trade unions and extolled their virtues and their value, and in the next breath said that they want to restrict their freedoms and abilities to function as trade unions? Does he find that that rings hollow?
Kevin Barron
It rings very hollow.
The Government would have us believe that they are impartial in passing legislation relating to the balance between employer and employee, but they are not impartial at all. In fact, in their capacity as an employer they have a significant vested interest in undermining the actions and the future of trade unions. The state is a huge employer, and over 54% of public sector employees belong to a trade union. We should not be surprised that in some parts of this Bill the Government are looking particularly to attack public sector trade unions, because trade unionism now stands more in the public sector than in the private sector.
Over the past five years, the relationship between the Government and a number of public sector unions has been particularly difficult. It is called austerity. It is called having your income limited, perhaps when you have a partner and children at home and have to try to keep their heads above water. It is about being called “difficult” when perhaps some of your neighbours who work in the private sector are able to carry on getting their income increased and looking after themselves. That is why there is disgruntlement. I genuinely believe that this Bill is about the Government acting as an employer, not as somebody who is impartial to industrial relations in this country, to attack the public sector and its workforce.
There is little evidence—in fact, there is an overwhelming lack of evidence—that change in this area is needed. The Secretary of State mentioned the Carr review, which was set up in April 2014 and reported in October 2014. It looked at issues of intimidation. Frankly, it was right to do so. However, it found little evidence of intimidation. Nevertheless, on the basis of that report the Government have decided to introduce this legislation. The review said:
“I have reached the conclusion that it will simply not be possible for the review to put together a substantial enough body of evidence from which to provide a sound basis for making recommendations for change”.
Yet here we are, a few months later, with the Government attempting to legislate in this area. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Individually and cumulatively, these proposals will fundamentally damage the capacity of unions to organise strikes. Many of these are not needed, but having the right to go on strike is an important tool on the table when you are sat down negotiating on behalf of members. I did it in the coal industry for many years before I came here. I understand why trade unionism was right, and my father and his father understood it as well—it is because people used to get killed down the pits on a daily basis until the unions came in and fought for members. This Bill undermines that.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Within a few months of starting as a foreman in a motor factory in the early 1980s, I managed to cause a walk-out. It only lasted half an hour and I subsequently discovered that it was a part of choreography between the management and the unions to settle a particular dispute. I think they settled on my shift as the one in which to do it because I was probably the most naive of the factory foremen.
I tell that story to show how far we have come since then in relationships between management and unions. I can think of one instance in my own constituency just a few years ago when an hon. Member, whose name I will not mention, helped to sort out a strike action that could have been very damaging. I understand the great importance of that kind of work.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). There is a real need to protect the interests of the public and to ensure that they are as little inconvenienced as possible. I pay tribute to the Fire Brigades Union, which in my experience has always ensured, even when involved in ongoing strike action, that it is done in a responsible manner. That was particularly the case when the fire brigade had to attend a devastating and tragic fire—it led to the deaths of two people—in my constituency last October. It put all its concerns aside to attend to the needs of those who were in great difficulty.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has said that he has worked in industry as a foreman. Surely he agrees that it is far better in the private sector when major companies are prepared to deal with trade unions and give them time to go about their trade union duties. Does he agree that that is more enlightened employment than the stone-age stuff we are getting from the Government?
Jeremy Lefroy
I absolutely agree that it is extremely important to have time to conduct those duties in a responsible manner, but it is also extremely important to protect the interests of the public, particularly those who have to get to work and who need childcare. On the other hand, I do not think that we as a Parliament or a Government should be looking to interfere in the running of trade unions in some of the ways set out in the Bill.
I will mention three or four of those areas. First, I cannot see what the problem is with check-off, provided that the cost of it is paid for. The Staffordshire County Council representatives who operate check-off tell me that the union pays 2% for it, which is probably more than it costs the council to operate it. The same applies in other public services. I have no problem with that and I ask the Government to look again at the issue and perhaps not introduce that proposal.
I do not see the problem with electronic voting, either. It will eventually be introduced, and if we are to ask for higher turnouts, electronic voting is a must. I will not go into the picket line issues, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has already addressed them more eloquently than I ever could.
Finally, on the political fund, I believe that the right way forward is proper reform of political funding across the board. It is very difficult to do that without a comprehensive solution. I know it was tried in the last Parliament and it did not work, but I urge the Government and the Opposition to sit down and try to sort it out once and for all.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate on a Bill that has, at its heart, substantial and ill-considered threats to some of our most fundamental freedoms.
As the SNP’s spokesperson on fair work and employment, I rise to speak against this Bill, which does nothing to promote the concept of fair work in employment. It goes to the heart of destroying many rights that were long fought-for by our foremothers and forefathers. Were they to be lost, it would certainly take a very long time to regain them.
The SNP Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training, Roseanna Cunningham, said recently:
“Scotland is historically viewed as the birthplace of workers’ rights”.
The approach we take in Scotland is fundamentally respectful, acknowledging the overwhelming prevalence and importance of negotiation in trade union activity. That negotiation contributes to improved employment practice and improved outcomes for both the workforce and employers. I am not the first, and I will not be the last, to say this today, but the contrast could not be greater between the respectful and constructive approach taken in Scotland and in other parts of the UK and the draconian, intrusive, discriminatory, impractical and unnecessary measures the Tory Government have laid before us today.
Tony Benn once said:
“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all frighten people and secondly, demoralise them.”
This Bill does both of those things and simultaneously undermines our place in the world as a progressive, democratic family of nations. Slowly but surely, this Tory Government are chipping away at our fundamental civil liberties and human rights.
Hannah Bardell
No, I will not: I want to make some progress.
This Bill undermines a number of basic, fundamental human rights. As we all know, this Tory Government also seek to remove the Human Rights Act from the statute book altogether. As with their targets on child poverty, they will remove any aspirational standards that enable us to be a forward-thinking and progressive society.
This Tory Government are not just ideologically driven, but ruthlessly politically opportunistic. They claim to believe in a smaller state in relation to providing public services, but are happy for it to have a very long arm to interfere in the lives of its citizens, especially those who are less powerful or less fortunate.
The history of trade union legislation is probably the most politicised area of legislation. Liberty, one of the UK’s leading civil liberties and human rights organisations, has said of the Bill:
“Ideological motivations of any Government are part and parcel of politics but should not imperil the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals. Yet this relatively short Bill has the potential to cause significant damage to fair and effective industrial relations in this country—and would set a dangerous precedent for the wider curtailment of freedom of assembly and association.”
In essence, this Bill is about restrictions on fundamental freedoms. It introduces increased restrictions on the abilities of trade unions to ballot for strike action; reduces the amount of paid facility time; requires trade unions to become certified by the UK Government for legal protection; and introduces new investigatory powers against trade unions. The Bill introduces measures requiring a 50% threshold and 40% turnout for all ballots declaring strike action. That is the same undemocratic practice that the Conservatives used in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum.
This Bill is a fundamental attack on human rights and civil liberties, and a reminder that the Tories fear the trade union movement. This Government want to take away some of our most fundamental and basic rights, while shrinking the space for us to debate and protest. The SNP—
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).
I was brought up by parents who were trade union stewards, one for the then National and Local Government Officers’ Association and the other for the NASUWT. Like many of my Conservative colleagues, I am supportive of trade unions and what they do—I certainly feel that from a family perspective. The hon. Lady referred to the Bill as draconian and an ill-considered threat to our public freedoms. I have spent hours listening to the debate while simultaneously reading the Bill, and I cannot find in it anything that matches some of the rhetoric we have heard today.
This Bill gives added legitimacy and transparency not only to the public, but to trade unions. If transparency and legitimacy increase, surely trade unions will find it a much easier sell to both the public and their members and, indeed, to the employers they are seeking to persuade that their action should be taken seriously. To that extent, I welcome the new minimum threshold. Again, when it is met, one would assume that employers will actually take the threat seriously and the chances of resolution will be increased. When it is not met, however, the public can be reassured, as taxpayers who in many respects fund public services, that their lives will not be disrupted as a result. I am so minded by personal experience: when the National Union of Teachers was on strike in 2012, that had an impact on me as a parent. I certainly remember that the turnout was 27% of all members, so the impact on children and parents—my constituents—seemed completely disproportionate to the number who voted in favour of the strike.
On legitimacy, looking at the current labour market, a four-month limitation seems entirely proportionate with how labour and mobility change. That will make union legislation in tune with the current labour market and, again, it increases legitimacy. I also believe that opting in—members having to make a conscious decision to join a union—makes absolute sense. In every other walk of life, we would expect our constituents to have to join up to a party, not become members by default. On transparency, it can only be a good thing for members to have more clarity and information, so that they know what they are striking for. I echo the points made earlier about having the right balance on reporting information. It is important to show how much public money is being given to permit union activities, and that those activities are completely and correctly identified. I believe that will be addressed in Committee.
The Bill is ultimately sensible. It brings the legislation up to speed with the current employment market and increases legitimacy and transparency. All hon. Members who believe in such factors in relation to strikes should surely welcome the Bill.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am proud to be a trade union member. I am a member of Unite and of the Trade Union Group. I am delighted to show solidarity with the more than 6 million people who are part of the UK’s largest voluntary organisation—the trade unions.
I do not share the analysis of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) about the nature of the Bill, which attacks fundamental civil liberties and the democratic rights of trade union members. I believe that it is politically motivated. It will deepen the UK’s anti-trade union laws, which are the most restrictive in the western world. The changes will worsen industrial relations and push us further down the path to a more confrontational labour-relations policy. I abhor the thought that it could potentially criminalise firefighters, nurses, teachers and other workers who are simply trying to defend a fair and safer workplace.
The Government are demanding a democratic standard in relation to balloting not sought by any other organisation, or by many Members of the House. I was disappointed by the Secretary of State’s responses in the opening statements. If the Government want to enhance workplace democracy, I ask them to engage with trade unions on the introduction of e-balloting and secure workplace ballots, which would help to increase participation and turnout in trade union ballots.
Ian Lavery
Will my hon. Friend explain the benefits of e-balloting and workplace ballots?
Grahame M. Morris
There is a contradiction in the Government’s position. E-balloting is accepted for the first stages of the election for the Conservative party mayoral candidate—it is secure enough for that—and for secure workplace balloting on recognition agreements, which is enshrined in legislation, but e-balloting is not accepted in the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
Is my hon. Friend aware that e-balloting is also used for the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the National Trust, the Magistrates Association, the Countryside Alliance and the Royal College of Surgeons?
Grahame M. Morris
Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. A plethora of organisations —[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am desperate to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hear him because there are too many conversations or too many interruptions. Whichever it is, I call Grahame M. Morris.
Grahame M. Morris
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend’s point was excellent and well made. In modern times, e-balloting is an accepted method of improving participation.
In truth, the Bill is a smokescreen to divert attention away from the Government’s policies of austerity and to limit the response of working people to object to the assault on their pay, pensions and working conditions. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) and other hon. Members have made interesting comparisons with hedge funds, the banking system and the financial sector. Such organisations and institutions promoted the casino economy that brought Britain, and indeed the world, to the brink of financial disaster. Yet, they seem to be allowed to wield considerable and unfettered political influence, and there is no proposal for similar constraints or levels of transparency. Our recovery is being built on a private debt bubble, and as austerity fails to eradicate the deficit or to improve the income or living standards for ordinary people, it is more important than ever for them to have a trade union to represent their interests.
In addition to significant and unnecessary new burdens, trade unions will also be expected to pay a levy to fund the certification officers’ new role. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the role will be much more proactive. They will have new powers to impose financial penalties and to scrutinise how unions use their political funds and for what purposes. Several Members have talked about the diverse reasons for which funds are used, but I hope that Government Members would agree that HOPE not hate and Bite the Ballot, as well as voter registration and improving public services, are all laudable aims that political funds support.
Unions must secure the continued consent of members to maintain a political fund, but that happens already as there must be a separate ballot every 10 years. Other Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), have mentioned that. Winston Churchill said:
“It has become a well-established custom that matters affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached…between the leaders of the main parties”.—[Official Report, 16 February 1948; Vol. 447, c. 859-860.]
I ask all Members to vote against this most pernicious, partisan and overtly political Bill, which is one of the most objectionable that I have seen in my time in the House. I ask those with a genuine interest in enhancing workplace democracy and improving industrial relations to engage and work with trade unions, not to see them as an enemy. They aim to create safer, fairer workplaces for our constituents and address grievances in an amicable manner—
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I would like to declare myself as a proud trade unionist all my working life. I am grateful for the support that I have received from the trade union movement.
I believe that this Bill is designed to restrict and undermine the role that trade unions play in our society by making it harder for working people to organise in the workplace. It seeks to do so by tying trade unions up in an excessive amount of red tape, by attacking facility time and by gagging them, thus curtailing their ability to speak out on behalf of working people.
It seems clear to me that, in putting forward this Bill, the Government fail to understand the value of trade unions’ contribution to working practices, health and safety, productivity and the economy. The Government say that the aims of this Bill are to enable the UK to pursue an ambition to become the most prosperous major economy in the world by 2030, and to ensure that hard-working people are not disrupted by strike action. I believe that, far from delivering those aims, the Bill is likely to work against them. Many colleagues have commented on the latter, so I will focus on the former.
Trade unions make a positive contribution to the lives of millions of working people in Britain: they champion the kind of fair, reasonable and safe working environments we all expect as the norm in a civilised society; they secure reasonable contracts of employment so that people can be healthy and productive in their workplaces; they promote equality so that people can be treated fairly regardless of race, religion, gender or politics; and they mediate between employers and employees when difficulties arise. Unions have been responsible for changes in legislation that have benefited all, regardless of union membership, such as the eight-hour day, paid holidays, equal pay for men and women—though we have a way to go on that one—and health and safety at work. This role of ensuring safe workplaces should not be underestimated. I recently met a nurse who told me why she joined a union more than 20 years ago. In her workplace, it had been common practice for nurses to mop up bodily fluids off the floor without wearing gloves. It was only the intervention of the union that led to this practice being stopped. She joined as a result and has never looked back.
I believe it is time for us to look for a more balanced and constructive approach to industrial relations in Britain, yet this Bill is an attack on the facility time of trade union representatives, which flies in the face of good industrial relations. The director general of the CBI said in 2009:
“Union reps constitute a major resource: there are approximately 2,000 workers who act as lay union representatives. We believe that modern representatives have lots to give their fellow employees and to the organisations that employ them.”
In addition, unions have always done useful work in providing training and skills improvement in the workplace. Earlier this year, I visited Vauxhall Motors’ plant in Ellesmere Port, where many of my constituents work. Vauxhall is a global success story. I saw at first hand the work done by Unite the union to develop education and training within the plant, upskilling the workforce and providing working people with the means to reach their potential. In Britain, we are seeing an increase in workplace insecurity, with the number of people on zero-hours contracts rising rapidly, and many of those on such contracts are employed in the health care and education sectors. It is highly unlikely they will receive skills training and education at work, which will add to the trend of ever decreasing pay and skills and the low-pay, low-skill economy, which as a nation we cannot afford.
If we want a more productive economy, the Government would do better to make investment in skills and technology a priority, rather than weakening the role of trade unions. The Bill is an unnecessary and vindictive attack on trade unions and undermines the democratic rights of working people, and I urge everybody in the House to vote against it.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
For the record, I am not, and never have been, a member of a trade union. I want to bring to the debate my perspective as a former council leader at Midlothian council, where I worked closely with the local trade unions. In that role, essentially working between the management and the unions, I saw the real benefits and genuine improvements, which we can never take away from, that trade unions can bring to their members and wider society.
I have always found that working together across disagreements and towards a common goal is the best way to achieve success, not the Dickensian-style sledgehammer proposed in the Bill. When even Conservative Members are referring to the Bill as “Franco-style”, we have to recognise that there is something seriously wrong. In Midlothian council, by working closely with our trade unions and negotiating between the unions and the management, and thanks to the SNP Administration, we were able to introduce a living wage—a genuine living wage, not the pretend one the Government are trying to palm off on people—within a few months of coming to office in May 2012.
That is not the only thing we managed. We worked closely with union representatives to deliver a non-compulsory redundancy policy that allowed further staff development. By doing so, we engaged the unions when it came to the difficult budget decisions necessary as a result of the Government’s austerity agenda. The Bill, by alienating trade unions and making it almost impossible for them to operate in a reasonable environment, would utterly threaten that approach and completely undermine the positive progress that is possible when people work together.
Only this afternoon, a group of scientists employed at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Midlothian had to take the unprecedented step of strike action. These are members of the Prospect trade union who felt there was no choice left other than to take strike action. These are not the kind of people many Government Members have talked about—they have painted a picture of bully picket lines and monstrous picket actions—but workers who have tried all other possible measures and felt they needed to take strike action for the first time in over 30 years.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend is indeed giving a different perspective from the other side of the table from the trade unions. Does he agree that in Scotland this law is not needed or wanted and is in fact an alien law that will create difficulties rather than help?
Owen Thompson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, many of the issues raised could be dealt with through general legislation rather than a specific trade union Bill.
James Heappey
On the SNP’s trade union group website, there is a page entitled “Labour’s Levy”. Can we agree that the SNP would support our move towards greater transparency on the political levy that funds political parties and trade unions?
Owen Thompson
Whatever views there might be on the political levy, the Bill is most certainly not the way to deal with it. Members are perfectly entitled to withdraw their support from the Labour party, as I know many SNP members have done, but the Bill is not the way to deal with that.
As I mentioned, the strikers this afternoon were not involved in the sort of wildcat or intimidating protests mentioned by Government Members, but simply workers with no other option. As others have pointed out, disorder is uncommon and can be dealt with by other means; there is no need for a specific trade union Bill. The Bill is absolutely wrong. I can think of no other way to put it. The Government need to take a step back, listen to the contributions of Opposition Members, think again and introduce something completely different that respects and moves the trade union movement forward, rather than using a sledgehammer to shut it down.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I rise to oppose the Bill in the strongest terms on behalf of Plaid Cymru. As the son of a retired trade union shop steward and the representative of an area steeped in coal-mining history, I value the role the trade union movement has played in advancing the lives of working people since it was legalised in 1871. It should be remembered that a royal commission in 1867 advocated the legalisation of unions as it would benefit both employees and, crucially, employers. My party believes that instead of pursuing further draconian measures aimed at restricting trade union activity, a speedy inquiry on industrial relations and employee rights should be convened to look into the role trade unions should play in a modern economy and the challenges faced by working people, such as zero-hours contracts, low pay and the increasing lack of workplace rights.
If we are serious about creating a more socially just society, trade unions have a vital role to play. Instead of reducing their influence, I would like to see Government action to increase workplace democracy. In Germany, for instance, in an economy that has outperformed the UK’s over many decades and is more balanced both in terms of industrial sectors and geographical wealth, trade unions play a key economic role in formulating industrial strategy. In the German legal framework of co-determination, representatives also sit on company boards, giving workers a direct say on company strategy and the hiring of management. I would also add that Germany’s decentralist federal governance system has also greatly helped to distribute its economic success more evenly geographically, unlike in the UK.
The Bill has been labelled the biggest attack on trade union activity for 30 years and follows a long line of anti-trade union laws brought in by Conservative Governments, most of which were not overturned by Labour Governments between 1997 and 2010.
Chris Stephens
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there are trade union traditions within many of the political parties, even the Conservative party, which has the equivalent of what can only be described as a “walk out”—a privilege denied to the trade union movement in this country?
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful for that well-made point. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech as the spokesman for the SNP.
By my counting, there were 10 Acts between 1980 and 1996 that attacked the trade unions. The coalition Government, much to their shame, tied in a further assault on trade unions with the issue of trust in politics in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.
The Bill aims to make it more difficult to take industrial action by forcing unions to give further notice before striking, introducing even higher thresholds for successful strike ballots and further restricting the right to picket. I note from elsewhere—this is critical to how the Bill will work—that the Government are minded to allow employers to bring in agency workers in the event of a strike. They are consulting on that currently. The Bill will undermine facility time, which will reduce the ability of union officials to represent their members at work.
The UK has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in the western world. It is a shame that an early priority for the new Government is to bring in another Bill at rapid speed, less than a week after three separate consultations on some of the measures in the Bill were completed. That raises the question of whether the consultations were valid exercises.
The Bill applies to Wales, Scotland and England. It does not apply to Northern Ireland, where employment law is a devolved issue. Regressive measures such as those in the Bill should make progressive politicians and individuals in Wales consider whether the responsibility for these issues should be devolved, instead of being held here in Westminster. I note that the Scottish Government are keen to press ahead with the devolution of employment rights. If these issues were devolved to Wales under a future Plaid Cymru Government, I suggest that there would be an alternative scenario to the one that we are faced with here today with this Bill—a scenario where the role of trade unions in the workplace and public life is enhanced, helping to shape economic and industrial strategy; one where trade unions play a pivotal role in the management structures of the public and private sectors; and one where the pay and conditions of employees are strengthened to resemble European norms.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
My dad came to this country from County Cork as an Irish navvy. He came here to dig roads. He joined the British Army to fight Hitler and after the war he went to work at London Underground, first as a train guard and then as a train driver. He was a proud member of the National Union of Railwaymen. Why? Because he wanted himself and his family to get on.
The evidence is now, as it was then, that in those sectors of the economy where trade unions are organised, workers are more likely to be better paid, to enjoy better conditions and to have decent pensions; less likely to be discriminated against, bullied and unfairly sacked; and more likely to work in a safe workplace and to have their voice heard.
I have worked over the years with some outstanding employers. Jaguar Land Rover is but one example. At the Jaguar plant in my constituency, the leadership of the factory goes out of its way to praise the role that is played by trade unions. The trade unions have acted as an agent for change in the industry and have transformed the automotive sector into a world-beating sector of the economy.
I have also dealt with many bad employers. I remember the EMI agency factory that sacked three women—two because they were pregnant and the third because she had a sick child. We finally won the battle before the employment tribunal. The women walked back in the following day and were treated as heroines. I saw a woman workforce with their backs straightened. They had a sense at last that because they could stand together in their trade union, they could answer back, be treated with respect and enjoy dignity in the world of work.
Trade unions, quite simply, are a force for good. They are a force for liberty in the workplace and a force for liberty in a democratic society. Now, the so-called party for working people wants to weaken working people. It is part of a wider agenda. This is a Government that brook no opposition; that seek to curb independent critical voices such as charities and the BBC. Now, they want not only to weaken working people, but to bankrupt the Labour party with their proposals on party finance.
I was treasurer of the Labour party for six years. I exposed the scandal of secret loans. That led to the Hayden Phillips process, which discussed a new settlement on party finance. It was put to me at the time, “If we were to have a cap of £5,000, it would bankrupt the Conservative party.” I said that it would be downright immoral if we sought to pitch the new arrangements in a way that would break the Tory party. We now have a Tory Government that seem to have no such moral compass.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is making a strong case. From his years of experience in the trade union movement, what does he think the change to the political funding relationship with the Labour party will do to help the people the Conservative party says the Bill is about—the people who want to go to work when there is a tube strike and the people who want to take their children to school when there is a teachers’ strike? What on earth will changing the legislation about political fund ballots do to help those people?
Jack Dromey
The great Jack Jones once said that working people have two ways to access power: their union card and their right to vote. Of course we organise first and foremost in the workplace, but this is also about the ability to influence legislation here in this House. The Government are determined to weaken both.
On industrial action, in 2002 I led a million-strong strike in local government. We put in place arrangements to ensure that not one example was found of, for example, people in care homes or looked-after children being put at risk. Why? Because workers always enter into sensible arrangements in the public interest to protect those whom they serve.
Christian Matheson
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He used to be my boss, and a very good boss he was too. In his many years as a trade union official, can he remember any instance of a strike that was entirely politically motivated?
Jack Dromey
The idea of cabals of shop stewards who pursue nakedly party political or political agendas is a myth peddled by the Conservative party.
Of course sometimes, for example with London Underground, there will be disruption, but one cannot in a free society shackle the right of working people to withdraw their labour. Ballots before industrial action? Absolutely. Sensible measures to get turnout up? Without hesitation. There can be workplace balloting and e-balloting. However, it is absolutely wrong to apply in this Bill a test that, were it to be applied in this place, would mean that very few people would come here.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Clause 3 sets out the important public services for which 40% support will be required in ballots. Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that
“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel”
is included in the list? Can he think of any instance when a strike at a nuclear decommissioning facility has put the public at risk?
Jack Dromey
No, and I dealt with the nuclear industry for 15 years. There were rarely disputes, there were very good dispute-resolution mechanisms and when there was the occasional dispute, workers and their trade unions went out of their way to protect vital and sensitive establishments.
I will deal with the other issues briefly in the time I have left. On picketing, I stood on a picket line in my constituency in 2011. Six careworkers from 10 to 22 years’ service faced being sacked by a Conservative council. Under the Bill, they would have had to report to and give their names to the police. As one of them said to me last week, “Jack, we’re not criminals.” As a police officer said to me last week in the west midlands, “Jack, this is not a police state.”
On agency workers, lasting damage would be done to industrial relations if workforces were divided in the way that is proposed. To cut back facility time would rob people of the ability to have a friend in the world of work that they can count on at a time of need.
Finally, to introduce the Bill on today of all days is a slap in the face that treats working people with contempt. This is arrogance that knows no bounds from a Government that are once again treating working people and trade unions as the enemy within.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I refer Members to my registered interests. I am a proud trade unionist and secretary of the GMB group of MPs.
What has disappointed and surprised me in this debate is the clear lack of understanding that is displayed by Government Members of what it is like to be an employee who needs a trade union. If there is one thing that they understand, it is that the trade unions stand between the Government and their plans for wage cuts, privatisation and attacks on terms and conditions. That is what the Bill is all about.
The Bill is a natural development, because it comes from the party that, in the last Government, introduced a law to make people pay to attempt to assert their workplace rights. I am, of course, talking about employment tribunal fees. The last Government made people pay to assert their right not to be unfairly sacked; pay to assert their right to have their wages paid; pay to assert their right not to be subjected to racist discrimination, sexual harassment or discrimination in respect of their religion in the workplace. It is a natural development. The Government now seek to clamp down on political opposition and leave workers defenceless against pay cuts and attacks on hard-won terms and conditions.
Chris Stephens
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this is not just an attack against one political party and that many organisations have benefited from trade union political funds?
Richard Burgon
That is right. One example is the anti-racist organisation HOPE not hate that I have enjoyed campaigning with over many years. The Government who say that they are against red tape and regulation now want the biggest voluntary member group in our country to drown in red tape and bureaucracy—or “blue tape”, as it should indeed be called. What is this obsession with things that could be done electronically being done on paper? Do we want to live in a society where supervisors must be appointed for picket lines, wear a badge or armband, and have to give their names to the police in advance? That is in clause 9.
Ian Mearns
It is an attack not just on freedom of association but on freedom of speech. People have to give notice of what they are going to put on a blog or on Twitter. That is inventing the concept of secondary tweeting, for goodness’ sake. It is in the consultation document, and therefore can be enacted afterwards.
Richard Burgon
I agree that it is gravely concerning, and I will come on to that point. Indeed, clause 9 states that the police must be notified in advance of trade union plans to use the internet or social media. Do we want to live in a society where the result of a ballot can have 79% of votes in favour of strike action, but it would be illegal for that strike to go ahead? That is in clauses 2 and 3. Do we want a society where the Government seek to stop the funding of political campaigns they do not like, and even seek to cut off funding to the Opposition that is meant in a democratic society to hold the Government to account? That is in clauses 10 and 11. Do we want to live in a society with anti-trade union laws that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—a distinguished Conservative politician who was once tipped for leadership of the Conservative party—described as laws that would meet the approval of General Franco?
The Conservative party logo used to be the torch of freedom, but this Bill is the antithesis of freedom. It seems to many people in the country that the Conservative torch that they view as the torch of freedom is being extinguished by the Bill. I call on Members from across the House who believe in freedom, liberty and civil society to do the right thing and oppose this Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I declare an interest in this debate as a proud member of my trade union Unite.
The freedom to speak out against injustice and to campaign for economic equality and the rights and freedoms of workers is underpinned by the European convention on human rights—rights that were bitterly fought for by the blood, sweat and tears of our ancestors. The Government claim that they are forced to amend those rights, and we are led to believe that that is because the number of strikes called in recent years is a threat to our economic wellbeing. The total number of days lost in the 12 months preceding April 2015 was 704,000, but before the House becomes hysterical about that, it is important to note that historically that figure was in the millions. In fact, we are experiencing an all-time low for strike action, and it is at its lowest level since before 1990. The simple truth is that workers do not take the decision to strike lightly, and they never have.
Is this Bill justified? The European convention clearly states in article 11 that a restriction on the right to strike would be judged by reference to whether it is
“necessary in a democratic society”.
With strike action at an all-time low. I see no legal justification for such savage stripping of fundamental democratic rights.
Let us leave human rights to one side for a moment and examine the next strand of the Government’s argument, which is that trade union activity and the right to collectively bargain poses an economic threat. That is simply not the case. Evidence provided by the New Economics Foundation recently concluded that as a wage-led economy, the UK’s prosperity depends on a substantial share of the national income going to wages. If we look at wage equality over the last four decades, we see that while many employers are equitable, a substantial number are not. Those employers share less of the profit that they generate with workers, and they do not alternatively invest that money in future industrial strategy. It is therefore critical that organisations that champion collective bargaining are able to represent their workers, and that those workers have the right to bargain collectively for their share in company and national revenue.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I apologise but I must make progress. I am conscious that a lot of Members wish to speak.
I stress that such rights are not simply to improve workers’ living standards, but to enable the functioning of the economy as a whole. If wages continue to fall in real terms that implies a shrinking of the market. That inhibits profit and growth, and results in a vast reduction in the amounts recoverable in taxes by the Treasury. Indeed, proponents of the competitive market—including those on the Government Benches—would do well to understand that intrinsic to its very existence is not just the supply and demand of labour, but the freedom of labour to move and organise. Members who are fans of the free market mantras of Milton Friedman and co. will no doubt notice a real contradiction in terms. On the one hand, the Government advocate freedom and deregulation of company activity in their promotion of free market ideologies, but when it comes to the activity of workers it is a completely different story.
It is clear that the arguments in favour of this Bill do not stack up. This Bill is a clear breach of the European convention and poses a real and present danger to our economic viability as a nation. I call on Members to reject this Bill today. Failure to do so will open an economic and democratic Pandora’s box that unleashes something so pernicious that we will not be able to close the lid again.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the next speaker I am afraid that I must reduce the time limit to three minutes. I say to Members who have already spoken that interventions are preventing others from speaking later, and those who are hoping to speak are probably cutting into their own time. If interventions could be kept to a minimum, the Chamber would be grateful.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud member of the Unite union, and I draw attention to my relevant declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a member of the trade union and Unite groups for Members of Parliament.
A fundamental principle is at stake in this Bill, which is the ability of working people to combine in the trade union movement for their collective benefit—a combining together that has brought higher wages, better working conditions and enhanced rights at work. The Secretary of State made a number of historical references in his opening speech. He quoted two Labour Prime Ministers—Harold Wilson and Clement Attlee—but he was somewhat selective in the history that he put before the House.
The fear of working people collecting together led to trade unions being illegal in this country for so long and to the Combination Acts, and only in 1871 was a limited right to picket peacefully introduced. The Conservative party’s history is to attack that right to collect together. The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and tried to present the concept of having to opt in to the political levy as an act of modernisation. The Conservatives have tried that before. That is precisely what was in the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, and it was regarded as a highly vindictive act after the general strike, which led—or at least contributed to—their election defeat in 1929.
Interestingly, when he quoted Clement Attlee the Secretary of State did not mention that it was Attlee’s Labour Government in 1946 that reversed that necessity to opt in to the political levy, because that was regarded as taking away power and balancing it too far from workers in the workplace. Let us not present something that has been a previous historical failure as an act of modernisation in 2015. This Bill is based on two fundamental flaws.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that local government and public services are completely devolved to Wales, and that therefore the measures in the Bill and the check-off could not possible apply in Wales?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have failed to take into account the views and positions of the devolved parts of the United Kingdom—and that is not all that they have failed to take into account.
Striking is not a first resort, it is a last resort, but unfortunately the Bill is based on that misconception. My father was on strike when I was born, in the steel strike of 1980. Conservative Members have no idea about the hardship caused to the families of strikers when they go out on strike. That is why it is always a last resort.
The Bill is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law as it stands. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in clause 9, which is the new set of requirements in relation to picketing. Conservative Members really must have little faith in the police and their ability to identify people on a picket line, given the number of requirements to be introduced. At the moment, only six people can picket at a time, but apparently not only will the picket supervisor’s name be required, but they must have a letter to show to a police constable or
“any other person who reasonably asks to see it.”
I am not sure who that would be. Hopefully it will be the Secretary of State, because if he attended a picket line, he might be a bit better informed about this part of the Bill. In addition, the picket supervisor must be readily contactable at short notice and, worst of all,
“wear a badge, armband or other item that readily identifies the picket supervisor as such.”
What an absolute shame. It is a badge of shame that the Tory party is trying to attach to the trade union movement.
The Bill, the employment tribunal fees and the attack on the Human Rights Act are a combined attack on working people by a Government who have given up the mantle of one nation.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB and Unite trade unions and a board director of HOPE not hate. As a former trade union officer and a proud trade union MP, I am disgusted that the Government are prepared to undermine a vital component of British public life for the sake of narrow political self-interest. Let us be in no doubt that that is precisely what we are seeing here today. The Bill is not a measured approach to industrial relations; it is a vicious and unprovoked assault on the labour movement. What problem are the Secretary of State and the Prime Minster trying to fix? Have I missed a tsunami of strikes or an outbreak of trade union militancy? The answer is no.
As many of my colleagues have touched on the specific impact on industrial relations, I wish to talk about some of the wider ramifications of this legislation, in particular its impact on an issue that is close to my own heart—the vital work of challenging political extremism in British society and the role that the trade union movement has played, and continues to play, in that. It is pertinent to raise that issue now, because today marks Rosh Hashanah, when the Jewish community celebrates our new year. But for many Jews, this year’s festivities are tinged with trepidation. A recent survey showed that six out of 10 are afraid to visit a synagogue on high holy days, for fear of violence and abuse.
Those fears are not unfounded. In the latest hate crime figures released by the Metropolitan police, the number of such offences against Jews in London had increased by 93% in the last 12 months, a trend confirmed by the statistics from the Community Security Trust. Those awful figures were mirrored by increases in hate crime across society, not least in the Muslim community which saw a 70% spike.
Wes Streeting
As someone who has campaigned with organisations such as HOPE not hate, is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am that the Bill will damage funding for those organisations and their vital anti-racist, anti-fascist activity?
Ruth Smeeth
I agree. There are few organisations that challenge the political fallout of those hates and fears, and I had the privilege of working for the best one—HOPE not hate. I am sure that both sides of the House would agree that the politics of hate and fear have no place in this House. But, if it were not for the work of my colleagues we may well have seen a neo-fascist British National party MP in 2010. We built broad community campaigns in areas as diverse as Barking and Dagenham, Burnley, Keighley and my city, Stoke-on-Trent, to oppose the politics of hate and celebrate the politics of hope—and we won. But the reality is that we would not have won without the financial and organisational support of the trade union movement.
Since long before the battle of Cable Street, trade unions in this country have played a part in supporting community cohesion alongside their traditional role as workplace advocates. In recent years, they have put their money, time and people on the front line to challenge extremists. It was the trade union movement that led the campaign to unseat Nick Griffin from the European Parliament. It was trade unionists who stood up to the English Defence League in Tower Hamlets and it was trade unionists who worked with faith leaders in Woolwich when Fusilier Lee Rigby was brutally murdered.
Under this legislation, all of that work is under threat. That is compounded by the horrendous gagging Act, and the resultant chill factor is unacceptable. Clause 10 would place severe restrictions on trade unions’ ability to raise and maintain their political funds, because every restriction placed on trade union support for the Labour party applies equally to the wider community campaigns that the movement undertakes.
As I have said, today is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, and while I wish the House “L’shana tova”, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity of a clean start at the beginning of the year to think again and stop this abhorrent and unnecessary attack on the trade union and labour movements.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests, which includes membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. For 15 years, I was an official with Unite, which gives me much more experience than some Conservative Members in dealing with industrial relations. That included dealing with some of the best managements in the country, such as at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port. Twice I worked with local management to save that plant by winning new models for the workers to build—something at which they are excelling now. That was achieved by consent and on a partnership basis. I saw no evidence from any management I worked with of a desire within British industry to bring in such legislation.
Some of the proposals in the Bill are so bizarre that I cannot help but wonder if they were put in just so that they could be removed at a later point in the Bill’s passage to give a false impression of just how reasonable the Government are. Other hon. Members have mentioned the armbands provision and the provision on tweeting during industrial action. If I as a member of a trade union and a Member of Parliament tweet in support of an industrial dispute, would I face prosecution?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend might be guilty of wildcat tweeting—[Laughter.]
Christian Matheson
That would be a terrible crime, and I would not wish to be accused of such a grave offence.
The Bill would be bad for the economy, because trade unions—yes, working with management—help to spread the wealth that the country creates. The richest countries are not the ones with the 1% wealthiest elite, but the ones with the highest average wages. The country with the highest average wages will win every time, but that runs contrary to Conservative philosophy.
I remember Prime Minister’s questions just before the summer recess when the Prime Minister criticised tube drivers in London because they were well paid and did not need to go on strike. Well, they are well paid because they are members of a trade union.
The Bill is about power. It is about removing power from any form of organised opposition to the Conservatives’ dominance. They know that individual people are stronger when they stand together and therefore opposition to the Conservatives will be weakened by removing that collectivism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) explained so eloquently. The Government realise this. In typically cynical and dishonest fashion, they cloak the Bill in the claim of protecting the public when in fact it does the opposite: it makes families and ordinary people much more insecure by taking away one of the few avenues of protection they have in their economic and working lives.
There is a sinister and dangerous authoritarianism to the Government’s actions. Attacking the funding of the Labour party, as the Bill clearly and deliberately does, breaks many long-standing political conventions. It is part of a pattern that other hon. Members have identified: the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 taking away the ability of charities and unions to campaign in a general election, but not big businesses and newspapers; allowing local communities to decide on whether to have fracking in their local communities, but then, if they decide against it, the Government driving it through anyway; and the Human Rights Act 1998, which so many Conservative Members want to abolish, despite it being one of the few pieces of legislation that protects the rights of individuals against the state.
We live in a pluralistic democracy at present, but that pluralism and democracy will be eroded yet again in a manner that is sinister and troubling. Trade unions are an essential part of any democratic civil society and that is presumably why this unpleasant, authoritarian Government are attacking them tonight.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I rise to oppose the Bill. It is being a member of the Unite trade union and the daughter of former trade union shop stewards that underpins my advocacy of workers’ rights.
The Bill is deeply damaging to workers’ rights and is just the latest example of how out of touch the Government are with the hard-working people of this country. The Bill denies the important role that trade unions provide in protecting and enhancing workers’ rights. As the Scottish National party’s spokesperson for equalities, women and children, I, along with colleagues across the Opposition Benches, recognise the important role that trade unions play in collective bargaining power that has benefited many women across my constituency to obtain fair pay for fair work in the recent equal pay dispute.
The SNP strongly opposes the proposed reforms, because they will erode democracy in the workplace. The Bill would restrict the power of devolved Administrations, local governments and other public bodies to determine their own industrial relations. Do Members on the Government Benches not see that good employment practices are key to economic competitiveness and social justice? Workers across the UK deserve the right to strike. It is an important outlet to promote social justice and improve employment conditions. The reforms would not allow social justice in the workplace to be pursued.
The UK Government’s Trade Union Bill starts from the false premise that unions are bad and that our activities should be curtailed. The Scottish Government have actively sought to promote the very constructive role that unions play in the workplace, the wider economy and civil society.
I echo the sentiments of trade unions that rightly criticise the Bill for allowing
“businesses to behave badly by undermining the right to strike”.
Trade unions helped to establish the Equality Act 2010, protecting thousands of individuals from discrimination on the basis of gender, race, religion or sexuality. Those protections in the workplace allow those with additional needs or physical barriers to make a significant contribution to the workplace. Perhaps the Government should consider the hypocritical rhetoric of helping people back into work on one hand, while gradually eroding the role of trade unions in the workplace on the other.
I close by reiterating the fundamental point outlined in article 11 of the European convention on human rights, which provides the qualified right to
“freedom of peaceful assembly…and to join trade unions for the protection of…interests”.
Are the measures in the Bill necessary in a democratic society? I place the burden on the Government to justify them as proportional, and I implore the House to oppose this arbitrary Bill.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am proud and delighted to point Members to my declaration of interests. I joined the National Union of Mineworkers on 3 April 1969. Since then I have been a branch, regional and national trade union representative, president of the biggest trade union in Britain and a member of the general council of the TUC, so unlike Conservative Members I might know what I am talking about on this issue. I am really glad that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), is here. I ask him to look into the naming of Bills in this House, because this Bill should really be called the “Deliberate Emasculation of Organised Labour and Abuse of Parliamentary Powers for Party Political Advantage Bill”.
Conservative Members do not understand the real world of work. They speak today as if every trade union member will be going to work tomorrow looking to create a strike and to bring people out time and time again. Trade unions talk to employers, and sit down with workers every day to deal with disciplinaries and grievances. They resolve disputes. They work through redundancies and reorganisations, and represent people at social security payment tribunals and industrial tribunals—genuine partnership. They develop policy on the national minimum wage and so on. They played a hugely important role in the peace process in Northern Ireland, and in the devolution programme across this country. They have also been involved in resisting, and why should they not when they are resisting job cuts, industrial decimation, attacks on individual members of staff, community devastation or discrimination driven mostly by a Government who want to have the upper hand?
This pathetic excuse for a Government does not have the statesmanship or the nous to understand that forcing their will on others in such a partisan way is simply wrong. Dressing it up as an extension of democracy is a joke. We all know that this is bad law made by political pygmies, and bad laws must be resisted. History teaches us that, if nothing else. The people of Selma, Alabama showed us that, the people of South Africa showed us that, the people in the shipyards at Gdansk showed us that, and the people of this country who threw out the poll tax showed us that. People outside this House will take action to defend themselves against these disgraceful attacks and it is wrong to use the law of the land in this duplicitous way.
The Bill attempts to build on the disgraceful lobbying Act, the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries and the attacks on voter registration. It is an act of a weak, spiteful Government and it will be resisted and ultimately defeated. If people have to break a bad law to stop it, then so be it.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is sad that there are so few Tories here tonight when they are destroying the rights of trade unionists and democracy itself. Who are trade unionists? They are simply working people—6.5 million of them—with an insurance policy for tough times. There are not a lot of strikes at the moment, but this Bill will provoke more and more. In fact, only one in five ballots leads to a strike, and the statistics over previous years show that the average trade unionist will strike only one day in 15 years. There is no problem to be solved; this is an ideologically driven attack on people’s rights to democracy and collectively to stand up for their rights at work.
We have seen problems with productivity and exports in industry. Exports of goods are now down to the lowest level since 2010. We want co-operation and collaboration to boost productivity, not a recipe for further conflict, but instead we see a Bill that will provoke people on the streets, quite rightly, to stand up for their rights. That will be an ugly affair that we do not want to see.
We have heard that the Bill is in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Russian television approached me to talk about it, partly because I am a member of the Council of Europe, as it was thought to be such an appalling abuse of people’s rights. We have heard about democracy and the fact that abstentions would count as no votes; we would not expect that of a totalitarian regime or a dictatorship. We have heard from the Mayor of London, who chose to confuse a quorum, which involves turnout, with people not participating at all being counted as voting no. That is either mischievous or stupid.
Intimidation will now occur, and there will be surveillance of social media. Where are we going with this? We see attacks on trade unionists in undeveloped democracies, such as Colombia, and we saw them in pre-war Germany. This is reaching an awful level and we should all resist it vehemently. Agency workers will now be seen as scabs and not as trustworthy parts of the community. We have seen division between nations, with Wales and Scotland not being consulted, between management and workers and between workers themselves.
Aneurin Bevan said that poverty and property—by which he meant the Tories, of course—come into conflict in times of austerity, and that the Tories would respond by taking away democracy. This is another step towards eliminating our democratic rights, alongside the gerrymandering we will see in the boundary changes and the individual registration changes. This is a horrible time for Britain. People will resist the Bill and the Tories should think twice about moving forward with such an awful bit of legislation.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I would like to make it clear at the outset that I am proud of my previous membership of a trade union, but I am certainly not financed or sponsored by one. I come to the Chamber to speak today because it is right to oppose this ideological attack on workers, a Bill that will have widespread ramifications for workers’ ability to organise and take industrial action, which we on the Scottish National party Benches view as deeply pernicious. It can be no coincidence that any increase in public sector strike action coincides with Tory-imposed austerity on public sector services and the restriction of access to justice with the implementation of tribunal fees, especially for women. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has heard the Tories’ poisonous rhetoric towards trade unions that this Bill should seek to undermine workers’ rights. If anybody had yet to see through the Tories’ claim to be the “party of working people”, the Bill exposes that claim as the ridiculous and ludicrous lie that it is.
Trade unions are the very fabric of this society: we may not always like what they have to say or always agree with them, but they perform a vital role in protecting workers and strengthening their voice. We should protect their right to strike with every breath we have. It is important in matters such as pay, work and employment conditions that unions are the first point of support and advice to people across all types of professions. In attacking the trade unions, the UK Government are actively undermining their support and attacking the ability of workers to stand up for their own rights. Amnesty International has said this Bill is a major attack on civil liberties. In looking at the potential impact of it, I would rather place my trust in Amnesty International than in the Conservative party.
This measure effectively treats abstentions as no votes, which warps the democratic process. Indeed, the 40% rule will be familiar to people in my Glasgow East constituency and in Scotland, as the same trick that saw the ’79 devolution referendum overturned—with the abstention of even the dead yet to be removed from the electoral register counting as a no vote.
The hypocrisy is clear, with this coming from a majority Government who received the votes of just a quarter of the total electorate earlier this year. For his part, the Business Secretary received almost 54% of the vote in his constituency, but just 38% of the local electorate actively voted for him. Would he say that he did not win a decisive mandate in that election? It is utterly inexcusable that he seeks to hold trade union democracy to a completely different standard.
This Bill will damage workers’ rights and impose undemocratic and hypocritical restrictions on the right to strike. Rather than de-legitimising last-resort industrial action, this Government should be working with trade unions and employers to create a better environment. That would be a far more ambitious and constructive approach to take if this Bill really were about progress.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I declare my membership of Unite and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This Bill, the so-called Trade Union Bill, is in reality a threat to all our rights at work. The Conservatives claim to be the “party of working people”, yet with this Bill they have committed the biggest attack on workers’ rights in 30 years. No party can claim to be representative of workers when they attack the workers’ very own institutions—the trade unions.
In the short time available, I want to focus specifically on the Bill’s proposals for facility time and speak on the basis of my recent experience as an NHS employee and as a workplace rep for Unite in the NHS. For many years as a workplace rep and a clinical scientist, I struggled by on no facility time at all. I was trained by my trade union in negotiation skills, representation, health and safety and learning at work, and this training was frequently called upon by my employers to represent members in grievances and disciplinary hearings, to negotiate pay and working conditions, to consult over workplace restructuring or job losses and to promote learning new skills and training at work.
I believe that all those activities were beneficial to both my employer and the workers; and I know that they were infinitely preferable to my employer, who found it far more efficient and cost-effective to consult me as an elected representative of the workforce rather than having to consult each individual member of staff over every proposed change. Eventually, I was able to negotiate some part-time facility time, as it was recognised that there was a real need for union reps to be available to bring their skills, knowledge and experience to the workplace and to partnership working. There was also a real need for NHS trusts, like my own, that were seeking foundation trust status to be able to demonstrate good industrial relations with staff. That could not be done without giving union reps reasonable time to perform their duties in the workplace.
I worked with management over many issues, including the complete overhaul of pay structures and terms and conditions in the NHS, known as “Agenda For Change”. We worked tirelessly with management to influence and implement these new measures, which could not have been achieved without adequate facility time for representatives. Facility time is not a drain on the public purse.
Harry Harpham (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that the TUC estimates that union workplace representatives contribute to overall productivity gains that are worth between £4 billion and £12 billion. Does she agree that measures that have had such a positive effect on productivity should be welcomed and, indeed, promoted?
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend. I was hoping to be able to make that very point myself. He has given me another minute!
Facility time is not a drain on the public purse; in fact, it is linked to increased productivity, which, as we all know, is crucial to the delivery of high-quality and cost-effective care in the NHS. There is a huge economic case for retaining the current arrangements. Capping facility time is an attempt to solve a problem that simply does not exist.
The Royal College of Nursing, which opposes the Bill, commissioned independent research. The resulting report shows that only 1.5% of public sector health care workplaces have a full-time union representative, and that those representatives are representing huge workforces consisting of some 2,500 people. They are dealing with employment issues every day, resolving conflicts before they escalate. The report also gives substantial evidence of close working between union reps and management, with managers reporting a high level of trust in their union colleagues.
The facility time proposals appear to have been drawn up by people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I call for the provisions in this Bill to be rejected.
Jack Dromey
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is probably widely known that I am a former deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union and of Unite, but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, of which I am very proud.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is on the record.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I, too, draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my membership of Unite.
It seems to me that the Bill is an attempt to create easy headlines about the way in which the Government are clamping down on unions, playing to a rhetoric that is based not on fact but on prejudice—and boy, have we heard plenty of prejudice from the Government Benches today. It is a prejudice that is rooted in the outdated and offensive view that trade unions are the enemy within. Every one of us in this place will have constituents who are members of trade unions. They are not revolutionaries; they are not radicals; they are ordinary men and women who want to organise themselves collectively to strive for better working conditions.
I have been in this place for only a few months, but many Members with great experience have already told me about the contributions that trade unions have made in their constituencies. Today, several Members—including my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood)—have pointed out that Unite, in conjunction with the management at Vauxhall, enabled the Ellesmere Port plant in my constituency to stay open, thus helping to secure thousands of jobs in the local economy and throughout the country. It is clear that trade unions can play a vital role, so why are enclaves of radicalism such as the British Medical Association, the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Nursing and the Society of Authors being attacked in this way?
Many individuals do not wish their employers to know that they belong to a union, because, sadly, victimisation of trade union members is still commonplace. Surely, in a free society, trade unions should be able to guarantee to their members that this information will not be disclosed except under the most stringent conditions. The age-old entitlement of lawyers to observe client confidentiality is threatened by the Bill, which puts trade union membership on a par with the activities of criminals and terrorists. Whatever happened to privacy and confidentiality?
But the Bill is not done with offending principles of natural justice. The cumulative impact of the new proposals would mean that the certification officer was responsible for making a complaint, investigating it, reaching a decision, and setting a punishment. Most bizarrely, the Bill allows any member of a union to enforce an order from the certification officer rather than the certification officer doing so himself. That is an outrageous outsourcing of justice, enabling private individuals to enforce state orders for their own ends. There appears to be no requirement for the union member to have any particular interest in the order. It is like saying to a Tesco Clubcard member, “You can collect a fine imposed by the Office of Fair Trading.” What perceived problem is that provision intended to deal with? Is the certification officer not capable of enforcing his own orders? The Bill imposes a whole new layer of bureaucracy and burdens on trade unions. Whatever happened to the red tape challenge?
I had plenty more to say, but my time is very limited. Let me end by saying that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that we can commend. There is nothing in it to tackle the industrial relations challenges that we face, and nothing to protect centuries-old principles of justice and confidentiality. Instead, we have been presented with a cynical and pernicious Bill that should be consigned to the dark recesses of prejudice whence it came.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Like many hon. Friends here tonight, I am proud to declare an interest as a long-standing trade unionist. I would run through the list, but I would probably run out of time as I only have three minutes. One of them is the National Union of Journalists, on whose ethics council I served and which stands up for the basic freedoms necessary for a healthy, functioning democracy.
It is through that prism that I look at the Bill, which cannot be considered in isolation, but must be seen in the context of so many other proposals from this and the previous Government. The list is depressing. Other members have mentioned the gagging Act but, as a former BBC journalist, I am also alarmed to see public broadcasting under attack in favour of its politicised, corporate-owned and Conservative-supporting rivals.
There are the devastating cuts to legal aid and the restrictions on judicial review, undermining the fundamental principle of universal access to the law. The snoopers charter is extending the power of the state to scrutinise us, while our powers to scrutinise the state are watered down by the freedom of information “review”. There is the plan to repeal the Human Rights Act, a great achievement of the last Labour Government. Perhaps most perniciously, there are the fundamental attacks on our democracy: more appointments to the other place, millions disfranchised, and boundaries fixed in favour of this Government’s own party. Quite simply, this Bill is part of the same agenda.
The rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression are all enshrined in the convention on human rights, and all are undermined by this Bill. This goes beyond anything proposed in the modern democratic era even by Conservative standards—and they can go quite low. In 1947, Churchill, hardly a militant socialist, acknowledged that
“the right of individual labouring men and women to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike”
were “pillars” of British life, but today’s Conservative party apparently wants to demolish those pillars. Those who seek justice at work will be tracked and treated like criminals, their social media monitored and their details shared with police. Those who protest will be forced to wear identifying marks and carry letters of authorisation.
Clive Lewis
Yes, it is sinister.
This is an attack not just on workers’ rights, but on our most basic and fundamental human rights. As Liberty has said:
“Applied to any type of protest these proposals would be a mark of an authoritarian and controlling Government.”
Of course, this Bill does not only pick off individual trade unions; it also attacks the very existence of trade unions. Unsurprisingly, trade union political funding is at the centre of this attack, while the Tories’ millionaire donors are rewarded with seats in the other place.
Not only does this Bill have the wrong answers, but it is not even asking the right questions. It shows that the powerful now wish to hold the powerless to account.
I did not come to this House just to give voice to the voiceless, but also to let them have their own voice, and tonight I shall vote to do exactly that.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Like many others, I am a proud member of my trade union and in my career as a barrister I acted for literally hundreds of trade unionists. When I was appointed as the Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service I joined the two staff trade unions to demonstrate to them my strength of feeling about trade unions. Over five difficult years they worked with me to resolve issues, rather than escalate them, which is a real asset in running a national public service such as the one that I was running. I pay tribute to them: that is what trade unionism is all about.
As other speakers have said, the right to join a trade union and the right of association and protest were won over a very long period. They are now entrenched in international law, not least article 11 of the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation conventions. That means there are four rules that have to be applied to the restriction of trade union rights: first, the restriction must be necessary; secondly, it must be proportionate; thirdly, the Government bear the obligation of showing necessity and proportionality —the burden is on them; and, whatever else happens, the very essence must not be stripped away.
This Bill fails all four tests. The three clearest examples are: treating abstentions as no votes, which is clearly against the international standard and the international norm; putting greater restrictions on public services, a category drawn much more broadly than the international community would permit; and the unjustifiable restrictions on rights of protest both in picketing and away from picketing. So this is not only a blow for trade unions and trade unionism; it is also a blow for human rights and civil liberties, and that is why we must vote against it.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I must confess that, earlier this afternoon, I was almost touched by some of the contributions from Conservative Members. I had not realised until then that they had such a passionate commitment to the trade unions in this country. Some of the stories of their personal and familial involvement in the industrial disputes of yore were almost touching. Then, of course, I realised that it was all a charade, a fabrication concocted by the Conservative public relations machine to mask the true intent of these proposals. No matter how many crocodile anecdotes and weasel words they come up with, the truth is that this is an anti-trade union Bill.
Why the requirement for 40%, we might ask. That is simply the result of a calculation by the Government that, when opinion is divided, a union will have to have participation levels of 80% or more. They rightly think that that will be very difficult to obtain, and of course they are doing nothing to improve participation through e-balloting or other contemporary mechanisms. This is simply a ploy to prevent people from going on strike.
Given the way in which the Government talk about check-off and facility agreements, anyone would think that those were statutory requirements from which employers needed to be freed. They are, however, voluntary arrangements that are freely entered into between employers and employees. If I am running a business, what right do this Government have to tell me how I should consult and involve my employees in that business? Then there is the four-month expiry of mandate clause. Let us be clear: that is nothing other than a licence for bad employers to sit it out and wait for the mandate to expire. They can watch the clock ticking down and in the meantime bring in agency labour to undermine the union that has gone on strike.
Every clause in the Bill has been designed to make it harder for ordinary people to organise themselves at work and to advance and defend their rights, and to make it harder for their national organisations to operate on their behalf. That is why Scottish National party Members oppose these proposals completely.
My final question is: why now? What great industrial crisis exists in Britain today that requires this Bill to be at the epicentre of the Government’s legislative programme? There is none. The truth is that this is not about making Britain better or about running things better; it is about satisfying a blood lust inside the Conservative party. These are the most vindictive, narrow-minded and reactionary proposals that we have seen in this House, and we should reject them completely.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure to listen to so many speeches today showing what trade unions really are. Rather than hearing ridiculous stereotypes about trade union barons or militants, we have heard about the millions of ordinary working people who elect their leaders and simply want a better, fairer life at work. I, too, must declare an interest in the debate. I am a proud trade union member, and I was a shop steward for years. And yes, I have been on strike. I was supported by my fellow trade unionists in all of that and in getting to this place, and I’ll tell you something: I am proud of all those things. I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with fellow working people to get a better deal for those who slog their guts out just to get by and get on. I was also proud to represent fellow members when they had a problem at work, and to make sure they knew their rights and got access to justice when they were wronged.
Of course that meant standing up to unscrupulous bosses, but that often meant fewer days lost to sickness, happier staff and a lower staff turnover. It also meant that we had productive negotiations when an issue arose. And yes, I was proud to stand on the picket line with the Remploy workers who were shamefully abandoned by the previous Government, and with low-paid women workers fighting against downgrades. As a trade unionist, I knew that taking strike action was a last resort, and not one that any of us wanted to take, but when all else fails, that is what is left. Without it, the bad bosses would not want to negotiate in the first place. Quite simply, it allows working people to have some power over their lives. Throughout our history, working people have had to fight for what we have. Nothing has ever been gifted to us. Trade unionists fought for an end to child labour, as well as for an eight-hour day, paid annual leave, and maternity and paternity pay.
Jack Dromey
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the voice of working people to be heard, not just in the workplace, but in the corridors of power. Does she agree therefore that it is fundamentally wrong that the Government should have an agenda that is designed, in effect, to bankrupt the Labour party and therefore break the voice of working people in Parliament?
Paula Sherriff
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and agree with everything he has just said.
The trade union movement also brought us the minimum wage and even the weekend, and the key to all that was an organised voice in politics. It is no secret that the affiliated trade unions have put many of us on these Benches, while Conservative Members rely on big businesses, corporations and wealthy individuals. For decades, there has been a consensus that any changes to political funding rules should be made on a cross-party basis. This Bill, like so many others, rips up the constitution in favour of a naked political attack. It is an attack on the ability of trade unions and their members to have a say in politics, just at the time when it has never been more important that working people have a voice.
At the moment, hundreds of thousands of working people pay just a few pence from the union subs to make their voices heard. I am talking about paramedics or cleaners, who do not have the luxury of a cosy dinner with the Chancellor; supermarket workers, who will not catch the Secretary of State in the veg aisle; and teaching assistants, who are not likely to bump into the Prime Minister on the street—indeed, we know that the last time someone did bump into him in west Yorkshire it did not end very well. Trade union members know whether their unions are affiliated to Labour and can opt out of making a contribution to the political fund, and every 10 years we are balloted on whether we want a political fund at all. There is no real wrong that this Bill is trying to right. It is not about high principle, just low politics.
I am not afraid to say that I am a working-class woman when there are too few in this House. I spent my life before I came here working on the front line of our public services, for the police, supporting victims of crime, and for our NHS, supporting all who needed care. When I walk around my constituency people say to me time and time again that they want to see more people like them in Parliament. I am not ashamed of the trade unions’ political work. They are part of our democracy, not a barrier to it. Working people in my constituency need a voice more than ever—
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am proud to declare that I am a trade unionist and was an official of Unite for 17 years before coming here. I rise to oppose this anti-trade union Bill. Should we be surprised by it, for have not the powerful always sought to take power from those people who get on and build our country? I refer to those people working in our services and in our public sector, and those who are in the engine room of driving up productivity and building our economy. The trade union movement has seen inequality throughout the past 200 years, and today men and women experience it daily. Against this adversary—against the crushing hand of bad employers or the state—men and women have organised, and nothing will stop their spirit in fighting for justice and making sure that they have better rights for the future.
This Bill sets out to rob these people of those basic human rights, making it almost impossible for workers to exercise their right to take action, as detailed ballots are already so difficult to implement. From talking to so many employers, particularly in the public sector, I know how they struggle to implement the current legislation on industrial ballots. One employer has 250 workplaces and has to know the jobs taking place in them and the grades involved. Obviously, as they do not know where their staff are, they struggle with the legislation. The Government are now introducing more bureaucracy for employers, wasting more of the employers’ resources. The advanced details that the Bill introduces deal with things such as the dispute plan, which interrupts industrial relations. That should be the subject we are debating today: how we create good industrial relations, and how we resolve the disputes and solve the real challenges facing workers at this time.
I wish to talk briefly about responsibility in industrial action. Last year, NHS staff raised a dispute about their pay, having experienced a 15% real-terms pay cut while managers had had an 11% pay increase over the past six years. The dispute was registered. Time and again, we wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him for a meeting. We had a string of solutions to offer, but he refused to meet us. He was spoiling for a ballot and industrial action when we could have resolved the issue around the table. Nine months later, after a day of action, he conceded. We have more days of strike action in the public sector, because the Government are using it as a tool against workers. But workers are responsible; they stand up for their rights and they always will. This piece of legislation should be ditched, so that it will not harm our members.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I, too, am a member of Unite the union and the GMB. I am also the daughter and grandaughter of two trade unionists. I am very well aware that I stand on the shoulders of giants from the generations that have gone before me and fought for my rights in the workplace—the rights for a weekend, for maternity pay and for sick pay. Those rights make workers more productive and happy. If those on the Government Benches are serious about protecting and growing our economy, they would take trade unions seriously as a partner and strengthen their rights, not remove them.
I am interested in seeing improvements to trade union rights in this country. Many colleagues have mentioned e-balloting. If we want more people to participate in a ballot, we should make it easier for them to do so.
The thresholds proposed in the Bill are a hypocrisy. Why should we apply a higher standard to working people who wish to organise unions in this country than we apply to ourselves? I would not be serving in this House today if I had been expected to meet the thresholds that have been proposed for our trade unions. It is an attack on civil liberties. As has been mentioned, article 11 of the European convention on human rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association, including the right to form and join trade unions”—
for the protection of their interests. This Bill puts a restriction on people’s rights, and I note that the briefing note sent to MPs from Liberty supports that view.
I wish to move now to a subject that has not been covered quite so much today. It is a sorry state of affairs that the Government cannot see the huge economic benefits of trade union membership and strong trade unions. Looking at the relationship between two major economic trends since the 1970s, namely declining union membership and a shrinking share of wages and salaries in national income, it becomes clear that the UK has paid a heavy economic price for years of labour market deregulation and anti-union policies. The UK is wages-led: it is wages, not profits, that drive growth in our economy. If profit shares go up, as has been the case for the past four decades, demand actually decreases. A 1% increase in the profit share leads to a 0.13% decrease in demand, which is a loss of £2.21 billion to the economy at today’s levels.
The role of trade unions in ensuring a successful economy must be recognised if the damaging decline in the portion of national income going to wages is to be reversed. It is for that reason that I will oppose this Bill this evening, and I urge Government Members to do the same.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of working people across my constituency and across the country, I rise to oppose this sinister, shabby and shameful piece of legislation, which goes against the best of British traditions in terms of the role that the trade union movement has played, particularly in the past century, in our democracy and civic life. I also make an appeal to the decent Conservatives on the Government Benches—at least to the ones who have bothered to show up today. This Bill goes against the best traditions of the Conservative party. If its members believe in free markets, they must surely believe in free labour. Perhaps that is why, in 1948, Winston Churchill opposed attempts to politicise the attacks on party political funding and the funding of a Labour party. Perhaps that is also why, in 1984, Margaret Thatcher said that the Conservative party should tread with caution before behaving in such a partisan way.
In 1998, John Major’s Government said that they had no problem with the funding of political parties by trade unions. This Bill does two things: it attacks the freedoms and liberties of working people and it makes a partisan attack on the funding of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Any decent democrat in this Chamber should be ashamed of themselves if they vote it through.
Look at the difference between the rhetoric and the reality in the Bill. The Government say that they want to give trade unions more democratic legitimacy, but this is, in fact, about delegitimising trade unions, increasing the threshold they need in order to go on strike but resisting their modernising calls to introduce electronic ballots. There lies the hypocrisy. The Government pretend that commuters in Ilford North and across London will no longer be affected by tube strikes, but the transport unions do meet the threshold, so this is not an attack on tube drivers going on strike; it is an attack on midwives, dinnerladies and other low-paid public sector workers who have the temerity to take on this Government.
The Bill goes against the best traditions of the Conservative party, but it is just what we should expect from this Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who has sought to rig the Commons and pack the Lords with his special adviser Lobby fodder, who will vote but not speak in debates. This is the Prime Minister who gags civil society, presiding over a Government who would have police officers taking the names of people on the picket lines when they should be out arresting criminals. They are our bobbies on the beat, so maybe they should arrest the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills for wasting police time.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on uniting the Labour party after a summer of vigorous debate. They think that this is purely about the funding of our party, but it is not; it is about values and belief in democracy, equality, collectivism and social justice. Those are the values of the real party of the workers, and that is why I oppose this Bill.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is important for me to speak in this debate, having been a Unite the union representative for 14 years in health. Trade unions are key social partners that play an important role in our society through effective democracy and by helping to ensure good employment practices, which directly promote economic competitiveness and social justice in wider society. Despite what some Members assert, the daily business of unions is not taken up with organising industrial action. They represent their members in many ways, ensuring healthy and safe workplaces, delivering learning opportunities and bargaining collectively to ensure that pay keeps pace with the cost of living, the benefits of which are also experienced by non-union members.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress reports that international evidence clearly indicates that where unions are able to negotiate collectively with employers, wages are fairer and, as a direct consequence, societies are more equal. Days lost to industrial action are down by 84% in Scotland since the Scottish National party came to power, lower than anywhere else in the UK. That has been built upon over time through true partnership and conciliation. However, the right to withdraw labour as a last resort is a fundamental human right and a hallmark of any free and democratic society. It is safeguarded by a wide range of international treaties, including the European social charter and the European convention on human rights.
There are profound concerns that the right to strike is being put at risk, as the new restrictions will make it so difficult to undertake efficient industrial action that it is, in effect, being legislated out of existence. The Bill would introduce a 50% turnout threshold in all industrial action ballots. In addition, for important public services it would also impose a requirement that 40% of the entire membership must vote in favour, which amounts to 80% of those voting on a 50% turnout. Under those measures, nearly half of all strikes since 1997 would now be illegal.
The Bill proposes restrictions on picketing activities, even though, as highlighted by civil rights groups, pickets are already more regulated than any other kind of protest. The certification officer will be given powers to investigate unions and access membership lists, even if no one has complained about the union’s activities. The SNP recognises that nobody wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to provoke confrontation—
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I am speaking on behalf of Unison as a Unison member. Unison has over 1 million public sector workers, with low-paid, part- time women making up the majority of its membership. I welcome some of the comments I have heard from Conservative Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and the hon. Members for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), who are clearly sensible, reasonable Conservatives. I hope they succeed in convincing some of their colleagues that with the measures in this Bill they are grossly overreaching themselves.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who is not in his place, seemed to have misunderstood some of the provisions in the Bill. He made the incorrect assumption that there is something along the lines of automatic registration for trade union membership or for political party membership as a result of that trade union membership. If someone opts in to a political fund, check-off happens when they have already signed up to be a member of a trade union, and there is automatic payment through their salary. It is important that somebody who is going to contribute to a debate understands the fundamentals of what they are talking about.
As we have heard, trade union members are cleaners, carers and drivers who simply want to get on with their jobs safely without fear of discrimination and to be rightly rewarded for it. This Bill singles those people out with armbands and authorisation documents. They are the people who care for our elderly, keep our streets clean, and mend our roads, and do not want to take industrial action—it is always the last resort. They have benefited from years of striving for rights and freedoms, and it is right that they should feel free to belong to a trade union without fear of reprisals or judgments against their character. This is now under threat through demonising them and suggesting they are prone to criminal behaviour by virtue of their trade union membership.
Many Conservative Members have lectured Labour Members on their own trade union backgrounds, and their support for and understanding of working people and their lives. Nearly all their comments have been predicated on, “I support trade unions, but”. It is perverse to claim to support trade unions with one breath and then to support this regressive Bill with another. It is already difficult to arrange a strike, with indicative ballots. My union has a 50-page document to guide people through the process of securing a ballot. I remind Conservative Members that the Financial Times says today that instead of restricting unions,
“more worker bargaining power would restore some overdue wage growth”.
Harry Harpham (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I stand here as a proud trade unionist and member of Unite and the GMB. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register.
The right to strike is one of the fundamental rights on which civil society is based. It encapsulates the rights of freedom of assembly and protest for which generations of men and women have fought and struggled. The establishment and defence of these rights is one of the most vital threads in our national story. By introducing this Bill, the Secretary of State has reminded us that that struggle is not confined to the history books. If the measures laid out in it are enacted, it will be an unprecedented blow to our civil liberties. It is a nakedly ideological attack on basic freedoms by Conservative Ministers whose aim is to silence opposition and secure political advantage. Reading the Bill, one might think that Britain was paralysed by industrial unrest, with strikes threatening to bring the economy to a grinding halt. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past five years, there has been a ninefold reduction in the number of days lost to industrial action since the 1980s.
Strikes are a symptom of poor industrial relations, not a cause. They are entered into only as a last resort, as I know from personal experience as a former miner forced on to the picket line in 1984 to defend jobs and communities against a Tory Government and National Coal Board determined to destroy both the industry and my union. I know the turmoil, the pain and the financial hardship that strikes can cause for those engaged in them. This is the price we pay for living in a free society, and compared with the alternative, it is a price worth paying.
Everyone knows there is no love lost between the Tory party and the trade union movement, but for the Government to play politics with some of the basic rights of those who have a difference of opinion with them, just because they can, is, frankly, an abuse of power. British industrial relations law is already among the most comprehensive and most restrictive in Europe. This Bill seeks to refashion that framework into a set of shackles, leaving unions unable to perform the functions for which they exist.
This Bill has been described as illiberal, pernicious, ridiculous, ludicrous and absurd. It represents nothing more or less than the curtailment of the civil rights of trade union members and the Government silencing those who oppose them. Britain’s low strike rate shows that the current legal framework allows principles to be put into practice. I urge Conservative Members to think very carefully before they cast that aside for political gain.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, would like to declare that I am a proud trade unionist and a member of Unite.
To be perfectly honest, I am very disappointed that we have to have this debate. As others have noted, the ability to form a union and carry out industrial action are basic rights in a democratic society. I am very concerned that the Government have introduced a Bill that seeks to undermine such fundamental rights.
As a trade unionist, I know that, if passed, this Bill will make it much more difficult for workers to raise concerns over safety, working conditions and pay. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on women in the workplace. We already know that women are systematically discriminated against in the labour market. Women already comprise the majority of those on the minimum wage and are more likely to be in insecure and low-paid jobs such as catering, cleaning and clerical work. Women are, on average, paid less than men and are more likely to be in in-work poverty.
It is also important to remember that women have borne a higher share of the burden of this Government’s austerity policies than men. Women have already suffered more from welfare cuts and pay freezes, and I am concerned that this Bill will make those inequalities much worse. The Government seem to be in denial about that. The Bill’s impact assessment totally fails to account for the disproportionate effect the Bill will have on women workers. The reality is that trade unions are one of the best tools in the struggle for gender equality, and attacks on union rights will damage the struggle for equality in the workplace.
Indeed, Government statistics on trade union membership have found that women workers who are in a trade union have a pay premium of 30%. That is no surprise when one remembers that the very purpose of much industrial action is to achieve gender equality in the workplace. If the Government restrict the rights of workers to organise, that will clearly have a negative effect on the struggle for pay equality.
Unionised workplaces are also more likely to have good policies on flexible working and maternity pay, as well as better support for those returning to work after pregnancy. By making it harder for workers to organise at work, this Bill will have a negative impact on all those areas, leading to further discrimination against women in work.
The Bill’s new strike ballot threshold will also affect women more than men.
Wes Streeting
On the increased threshold, I am sure my hon. Friend is as concerned as I am that it is not being made easier for workers to cast their votes through electronic balloting. Why does she think the Government will not agree to it?
Kate Osamor
I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
The Bill’s higher ballot threshold for essential services will disproportionately affect women, as they are much more likely to be employed in those sectors. Research by the TUC suggests that nearly three quarters—73%—of the trade union members working in important public services are women. Do the Government not understand that reducing the rights of those women at work will only increase the gender pay gap and worsen discrimination in the workplace?
This is a regressive Bill that threatens to undermine basic civil rights and reverse progress in achieving workplace equality. I urge Members on both sides of the House who do not want to see that progress reversed to vote against the Bill.
Mr Speaker
Now that, after a short flight, the exotic bird has returned to its nest, I call Mr Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
You are very kind, Mr Speaker. What the Bill in fact offers, contrary to what we have heard from Opposition Members, is a set of protections for two sets of working people: those who utterly depend on public services for their everyday lives and those who work in public services and find that they are often engaged in pointless, costly strike action because of the actions of a politically motivated minority.
I agree with everything in the Bill as proposed. It cannot be right that it is still possible to have a strike on the basis of a ballot that took place many months or, indeed, years ago. It is still technically possible to have a strike without a fresh ballot upon the removal of guards from the underground, a piece of modernisation that took place in the 1990s. It is utterly wrong that public workers should be subject to intimidation— sometimes reduced to tears—on the picket line or elsewhere. It is high time that that code of practice was put into law. Clauses 2 and 3 take us furthest and offer the greatest hope.
Boris Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.
Some kind of disruptive industrial action, bad enough to wreck one’s day, can take place on the basis of a tiny number of the workforce. To take a by no means untypical example, a strike was recently mooted upon the dismissal of an employee who had consistently failed to turn up for work, and a ballot was held by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Fifty-four people were balloted. Of those, only 14 could be bothered to vote. Five voted for a strike and nine for action short of a strike. Yet, as a result of the vote—26% of the relevant electorate—people’s lives were disrupted during that day. People did not turn up to work. The London economy suffered. There was disruption.
Boris Johnson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the extra minute.
As a result of intimidatory behaviour, we have seen strikes triggered by a tiny minority that have caused far worse disruption, inconveniencing and causing misery for millions—[Interruption.]
Boris Johnson
Only 24% of London bus drivers decided to vote in the dispute in 2014, yet there were two one-day strikes. The 2014 strikes over ticket office closures were triggered by a ballot that attracted only 40% interest and in which only 30% of the relevant workforce voted yes.
To those who say that we politicians have no cause to set thresholds, let me remind you that in America, the land of the free, 39 states have banned strikes by mass transit workers.
Mr Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is being his normal, generous self. In his two jobs, how many people in Uxbridge did not vote for him and how many in London did not vote for him? How can he condemn anybody else?
Boris Johnson
The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the concept of the quorum. We are seeing a tiny minority of workers taking decisions that inconvenience the lives of millions. He will know the huge economic cost of those decisions. He will also know that the European countries that have been alluded to constantly throughout this debate have all sorts of restrictions on the right to strike, not least in Spain—someone referred to Franco’s Spain earlier—which has minimum service requirements to this day, and Germany, which has a 75% threshold. That, he should frankly put in his pipe and smoke.
This is an excellent Bill—a serious, sensible Bill. It has been striking that not a single Labour Member has stood up during this debate to condemn the strikes that are caused by a tiny minority of the workforce. Not a single one of them has condemned it. That tells us all we need to know about the Labour party. It no longer speaks for the working people of this country.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of Unite.
Like many Members, I have had conversations with thousands—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has the right to be heard by both sides. He must and will be heard.
Daniel Zeichner
Like many Members—although I am not sure about the previous speaker—I have had thousands of conversations with constituents over the past year, including, in my city of Cambridge, at 30 or 40 hustings during the general election, and to my recollection not once were the issues addressed in the Bill raised, not even by my opponents, including those who tried to paint my employment by Unison for a dozen years as something of which I should be ashamed. Well, I am not. I saw thousands of people working in hospitals and town halls up and down the country giving up their time and often their careers to help their colleagues through the inevitable disputes that arise in workplaces. I am talking not about political disputes, but the day-to-day stuff that happens everywhere. Yes, sometimes they had facility time to do it, because pay-gradings, pensions, disciplinaries, the lot, take time to prepare for—that is why human resources allocates time to such matters. These people should be celebrated and praised, not denigrated.
I shall say a word about the provisions on political funds. In my job at Unison, I dealt with the political fund. Reading the Bill, I have a strong sense that those drafting it do not understand how the system works, and I urge Government Members to think through the unintended consequences. Thanks to previous Conservative legislation, unions have been forced to maintain political funds to carry out their mainstream functions. Unison’s predecessor union, the National and Local Government Officers’ Association, famously had to do that to campaign on behalf of its members just for public services—core union business. Yet the Bill muddles maintaining the political fund with links to the Labour party, and in attacking the latter muddies the waters still further.
The Bill will only add greater uncertainty to what can and cannot be done and, in my view, is likely to lead to greater politicisation, not less. I am not bothered about that, but Government Members might come to regret such a false move. They should also think hard about tearing up the long-held convention that we change the basis of financial support for political parties by agreement. The long battle involving Hayden Phillips is all too familiar to many of us, but Labour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, would not impose a solution without agreement. The Government are now doing exactly that, legislating to party advantage, meaning that the next Government will feel they have the right to do the same. The country deserves better than such tit-for-tat playground politics. This is a mean-spirited Bill. The Conservative party won the election and took the spoils, but with this Bill it reveals its weakness, not its strength.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of Unison. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Yes, and I am proud of it. As a former council leader, I know from experience that the role of trade unions has been nothing but positive and constructive, especially during this time of massive cuts in local government. The Government seem to have a morbid obsession with trade unions, a visceral hatred dressed up as a legislative virtue.
There is little, if any, evidence to back up the Government’s claim that trade unions are so disruptive that more legislation is needed, but it is the reserve clause—clause 13—that is particularly odd. It gives power to the Secretary of State or a Minister to determine whether a union rep, say in Carlisle, has had too much facility time off. Does the Secretary of State not have anything better to do than check what some union rep in Carlisle is doing? At a time when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is devolving power and responsibilities to the city regions, the Business Secretary and his Ministers are personally checking how much time a shop steward spends undertaking their union duties. This is how ridiculous it is. Can Members imagine the German, French, Spanish or Italian equivalent of the Secretary of State, sitting in Berlin for example, deciding whether a shop steward in Düsseldorf or Stuttgart has time off for union duties? That is how ridiculous it is. That is the comparison to be made. Why is the Secretary of State wasting his time on petty legislation and score-settling?
Alan Johnson
Perhaps my hon. Friend will reflect on this. I tabled a question for the Secretary of State for Health, asking if he could tell me how many child and adolescent mental health in-patient facilities had closed. He referred me to NHS England. He does not know that, but he will know every fine detail of facility time throughout the NHS.
Peter Dowd
That is how petty this is. Should the Secretary of State not be spending his time and taxpayers’ money dealing with issues such as productivity or investment in infrastructure?
I came down from my constituency today with three trade union representatives from the private sector who were on full facility time. That is the action of a sensible, reasonable and enlightened business, as opposed to the petty, anally retentive and obsessive Government, with a Secretary of State who has nothing better to do with his time.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
May I declare my current membership of the GMB and draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I, like so many Members on this side of the House, have nothing to hide about my relationship with, and support for, trade unions. Whether it is campaigning locally to defend community services in the steel industry, nationally to defend shop workers facing violence and to stand up for the rights of poorly paid musicians, or globally to fight for a Robin Hood tax and efforts to tackle global poverty, I have been proud to stand alongside trade unionists as a trade unionist for my whole political career.
This has been an extraordinary debate on an extraordinary Bill. What has been most extraordinary among the numerous speeches by Government Whips’ cronies, tying themselves in contortions trying to explain their workers, credentials, while supporting the Bill, not to mention a mare of a speech by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has been the ream of Government Members lining up to oppose significant sections of the Bill and urge their Government to think again.
The hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) urged a rethink on agency workers. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who had already told us that parts of the Bill were reminiscent of Franco, rightly spoke about the serious restrictions on freedom of association and the risk of judicial review. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), in an excellent speech, said that he had concerns about the provisions on agency workers and facility time. He told us clearly that we must not erode fundamental rights and liberties. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), in another excellent speech, raised concerns over the new notice periods, the role of the certification officer, which is set to expand massively, and the risk of inadvertent criminalisation.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), in yet another excellent speech, told us: “I cannot see what the problem is with check-off”.
He also pointed out that he cannot see the problem with electronic voting. He criticised the civil liberties aspects of the Bill and argued for a sensible, consensual and, if I may say so, Churchillian approach to political funding, which the Conservative party—at least, those on the Treasury Bench—seems to have abandoned.
We heard many excellent speeches from Opposition Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) said that this was a Bill not of high principle, but of low politics. There was an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) about the role of trade unions in standing up for the rights of ordinary workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) described the attack on basic civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) spoke powerfully about the attacks on London’s workers under the Mayor. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) talked about her role working with trade unions.
There were excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Harry Harpham), for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) suggested a good new title for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) gave an excellent speech and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) spoke from her extensive experience as a workplace representative in the NHS about the importance of facility time.
We had excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) spoke—as did other Members—about the Bill’s potential contravention of International Labour Organisation conventions and of European and international law. My hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) put it in a nutshell when she described the Bill as “illegal, illiberal and illiterate”, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) spoke about the importance of the principle of the right to strike.
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) spoke powerfully about the importance of ensuring the possibility of e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, and I will return to that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) spoke about her work and of the excellent work she has seen by Unite at the Vauxhall plant in her constituency. She also spoke powerfully about facility time. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) gave an excellent speech from his extraordinary wealth of experience and judgment on these matters. He painted a different approach to the one taken by some Conservative Members by describing trade unions as a force for good and for liberty in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—with an excellent intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—mentioned the absurdity of the social media provisions proposed in the Government consultation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke with powerful arguments about the role that trade unions play in driving productivity in our economy, and the role of good pay in doing that. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) gave an historical tour de force about the opt-in and industrial relations, and he spoke about the powerful issues around picketing and the complete impracticality of a number of provisions suggested by the Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) spoke powerfully about the role of organisations such as HOPE not hate, which I have seen active in my constituency doing incredible work on electoral registration and tackling extremism. She said how that will be put at risk by provisions in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) also exposed many of those absurdities. There were many excellent speeches by Scottish National party Members, including an excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who spoke about the role of communication in industrial relations and finding constructive solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) called out the funding provisions in the Bill for what they are.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, said that Disraeli would be turning in his grave, and Conservative Members would do well to look at their own provisions—even their great Margaret Thatcher did not go this far, and they should think carefully about what they are saying. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) made it clear that the Bill attacks what is, in his experience, the importance of working together to achieve agreement, which lies at the heart of good industrial relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) spoke of how the Bill could increase the threat of blacklisting, and he described the levies as a trade union tax and a potential breach of numerous legal conventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke of his powerful personal experiences of being involved in strikes against injustice and the effect on his own family.
I am glad that we have the support of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) because he spoke powerfully about how this Government claim that they seek to deregulate in every area except, it appears, the trade union movement, which they seem content to tie up in “blue tape”.
Many of us in the Chamber are, at times, prone to hyperbole and exaggeration, but this is not such an occasion. I have no hesitation in describing the Bill as one of the greatest threats to the activities of trade unions and ordinary working people up and down this country, and one of the greatest threats to hard-won and fundamental civil liberties in a generation. The Bill breaches long-established rights to strike, protest and take industrial action. It introduces pernicious measures and the potential for wide-ranging further restrictions and powers in secondary legislation that, as many hon. Members pointed out, we have yet to see.
The provisions on social media are simply absurd. Why on earth would we want the police to spend time establishing whether trade union members have said things two or three weeks in advance of action? The police have to spend enough time tackling extremists and criminals who are using social media. Importantly—I am a Welsh MP—we have heard that the Bill breaches the devolution settlement with far-reaching consequences for relationships and public policy in wholly devolved areas such as health and education, whether in Wales or Scotland, let alone at the level of local authorities in England or London. The Bill potentially puts the Government in breach of international conventions and European law. It breaches established conventions on the funding of political parties and political campaigning.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Bill is a fundamental attack on democracy, human rights and trade unions, it will boost Labour party membership by thousands more as people protest against this evil Bill?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend makes an important point and he echoes thousands of people who have expressed their opposition to the Bill today and in the past few weeks.
My noble Friends in the other place may be interested to note that the Bill breaches a Conservative manifesto commitment to make provisions regarding only essential public services. “Essential” is the word used in International Labour Organisation conventions, and it has a very narrow definition. Instead, the Bill talks about “important” public services and draws its provisions so wide that as yet unseen powers could apply to nearly every area of publicly funded activity. The House should not take my word for it or the word of those who have spoken today. Let us listen to the independent Regulatory Policy Committee, which described the Bill as not fit for purpose; to Amnesty, Liberty and the British Institute of Human Rights, which described it as a major attack on civil liberties; and to the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, which said:
“We need to see more consultation and…engagement with, the workforce, rather than the introduction of mechanisms that reflect the industrial relations challenges of the 1980s.”
We should listen to recruiters who are fearful that their agency staff will be used as strike-breaking labour. The Recruitment Employment Federation said that it is “not convinced” by the Bill.
The Bill stands alone as a divisive and offensive piece of legislation, but when viewed alongside the Government’s wider agenda of scrapping the Human Rights Act, introducing fees denying women the chance to sue for equal pay, slashing legal aid, attempting to limit freedom of information and judicial review powers, disfranchising millions through ill-thought-out changes to electoral registration and the Act that has gagged charities and civil society organisations, it is deeply sinister and it should sound the alarm bell from town to town and city to city across this nation of hard-won liberties in the year we celebrate the anniversary of Magna Carta.
I return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). What problem does the Bill seek to solve? This is not a Bill designed to increase democracy, transparency or the legitimacy of industrial action or political funding. It is nothing more than a naked partisan attempt to prevent scrutiny of the Government and their agenda. Not since the 1970s have we seen such wide-ranging attempts to change industrial relations law, but today we see barely a hundredth of the level of industrial action of those days. The Bill seeks to solve a problem that simply does not exist. Instead, it seeks to drive a false wedge between Government, industry, employees and the public by restricting rights and, at worst, criminalising people making their views known about their pensions, pay, health and safety and many other issues.
If the Government are serious about democracy and increasing participation, why are they introducing so many barriers and restrictions while denying trade unions a debate about electronic balloting and secure workplace balloting? If the Government intend to proceed with the Bill, they must bring forward amendments to it. At the very least, if they are serious about improving democracy, they could introduce a statutory instrument on the powers in the 2004 Act.
The Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), said:
“When we bash the trade unions, the effect is not just to demonise militancy, but every trade union member, including doctors, nurses and teachers.”
Today, the Financial Times said:
“Britain does not have a problem with strikes”,
and that the Bill is
“out of proportion”
and contains
“alarming proposals”
that
“threaten basic rights.”
Will the Government listen to their Ministers, their Back Benchers, the voices of civil society, the Financial Times and so many others who have spoken out against the Bill? We will oppose the Bill every step of the way and we urge all those who care about our democracy and civil liberties to join us.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
This debate has not exactly been notable for its cross-party harmony. Speeches from the Labour Benches have at times sounded like an extended message from their sponsors.
I will start by acknowledging some important common ground between hon. Members in different parties. We all value the work of trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) talked powerfully about the role shop stewards can play, and have played in his own life, in helping to protect people from bullying in the workplace. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) quoted Pope Francis and I agree with every word that Pope Francis said. We applaud unions for helping people from ethnic minorities, such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s father, to overcome prejudice in the workplace and unlock their potential. We admire them for the decades of campaigning that led to the passage of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the introduction of the national minimum wage. As Skills Minister, I would like to thank them for the work they do through Unionlearn to help thousands of working people to improve their skills. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) that that is a great example of partnership between unions, Government and working people. I want to work with unions to ensure that as many union members as possible benefit from our investment in 3 million new apprenticeships over the next five years.
Every 30 years or so, however, public institutions need to be modernised, to become more transparent, more accountable and more responsive. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) made the very important point that the biggest threat facing unions is not from the Bill or anything that this House might pass, but from a loss of public trust. It is modernisation that will help them regain it.
The Bill will give union members more information about what unions are doing with their money. It will ensure that diverting a union member’s hard-earned cash to a political cause is done only with their explicit assent. I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). I cannot think of a better cause than HOPE not hate and I have no doubt that union members will willingly opt in to political funds that make HOPE not hate one of their main causes. The Bill will also ask unions to form a direct relationship with individual members as customers of their services by ending the practice of check-off.
The core purpose of the Bill, however, is bigger than that. The purpose is to strike a fairer balance between the rights of unions and their responsibilities towards the rest of society, especially other working people. It asks union leaders to weigh the costs and benefits of calling a strike ballot carefully and to make sure they win the arguments for action convincingly. It ensures that in future unions will only be able to disrupt other people’s lives if their cause has broad support. In British society, we all depend on public services in our daily lives. Parents rely on schools to be open. They cannot put their children into another one if their school is closed by a strike. Patients rely on hospitals to be open. They cannot go elsewhere for the appointment they have waited for anxiously. People rely on trains and buses to get them to work on time. They cannot use another train or bus company if their local service has been shut down by a strike. As the Mayor of London, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) pointed out, most of the people travelling on public transport are paid much less and work much longer hours than those people driving it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) argued so powerfully, it is only reasonable to reassure his constituents, my constituents and those of every hon. Member that a strike that forces them to take a day off or to pay for expensive childcare, that makes them late for work or that makes them miss a long-awaited check-up was the result of a recent vote by a decent proportion of union members and not a vote taken several years ago in which only a small minority supported strike action. I have an example of that: the National Union of Teachers strike in 2014 that closed 1,500 schools and colleges was on a two-year-old ballot in which turnout was 27%. That was recent, it caused huge disruption and it was not democratic.
I would now like to answer some of the points made during the debate. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who I welcome to her place, suggested that the Bill gives the Government powers to add new sectors to the ballot provisions by secondary legislation. That is not the case. There is a power to restrict within the existing sectors those groups of employees to whom the threshold should apply and we have consulted on which groups of employers within those six sectors it should apply to, but there is no power to expand it further.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised some concerns about the picketing code, and those concerns were reflected in other speeches, too. I am a little puzzled by those concerns because the clauses in the Bill on picketing were taken directly, word for word, from the code on picketing, a statutory code that has existed since 1992, which the previous Labour Government made no attempt to amend and which no union has ever written to me to ask me to amend. The code talks about registering a supervisor and about picket supervisors wearing armbands or other identifiers. I am happy to discuss the detail of that code, but there is nothing in the Bill that was not already known.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised the question of e-balloting, and he is right that there is no in-principle objection to the idea of voting online. The objection is practical. In January 2015, the Open Rights Group—I think that it believes in open rights—gave evidence to your Commission on Digital Democracy, Mr Speaker, in which it said:
“Voting is a uniquely difficult question for computer science: the system must verify your eligibility to vote; know whether you have already voted; and allow for audits and recounts. Yet it must always preserve your anonymity and privacy. Currently, there are no practical solutions to this highly complex problem and existing systems are unacceptably flawed.”
If the Opposition can find a practical solution, I look forward to hearing it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) made an important point, with which I entirely agree. In asking public sector bodies to measure the amount of money spent on facility time, we must distinguish between union duties, on which it is entirely proper for union members and union representatives to work, and union activities, in which case it might not be so proper for them to be paid while doing them.
Our debates in this place focus on the issues in the Order Paper but on some days they also reveal the deepest shifts in the political landscape. In the speeches from the Opposition, we have heard the last rites being read for Labour as a party of the modern world. This once great movement has become a left-wing sect in thrall to union leaders who have become ever more extreme while their membership declines. It falls to us as Conservatives to stand up for working people in every part of this great nation. It is this Conservative Government who are investing in apprenticeships, creating millions of jobs and ensuring that work always pays. It is this Conservative Government who are giving pay rises to millions of working people by introducing the national living wage. This Trade Union Bill will modernise trade unions to the benefit of everyone in society.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House (15 September)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Human Rights (Joint Committee)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
British Airways (Pensions Uprating)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Will those Members leaving the Chamber who, unaccountably, do not wish to hear the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), please do so quickly and quietly? That would be appreciated.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which affects a substantial number of British Airways pensioners. There are two matters. One, regarding discretionary payments, is sub judice. The other arises in relation to British Airways pensions. Obviously, I shall not be discussing the matter that is before the courts. The focus of this debate is the decision by the trustees of BA’s pension schemes to increase pensions by the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index, as had been the case previously, following the emergency Budget in summer of 2010 which switched the increase in state benefits from RPI to CPI.
The change affects approximately 95,000 pensioners across two schemes: the airways pension scheme and the new airways pension scheme. I am grateful to Association of British Airways Pensioners and its representative, Captain Mike Post, to my constituent, Mr Len Jones, and to Nikki Jones of Unite—in which connection I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—for the briefing for this debate. I am sorry not to have had the benefit of any contact from British Airways.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this Adjournment debate. She may be interested to know that several of my constituents are affected by these developments, and I hope that she will address the issue I have been contacted about: the inequity of the position in which they find themselves because of BA’s behaviour. Once again, I hope she will reflect that and that we will hear from the Minister in a positive way.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention and I hope to do justice to the concerns of her constituents, my constituents and indeed, as is very evident from the turnout for this debate, those of right hon. and hon. Members from right across the House. I had intended to mention a number of the hon. Members who have approached me about this evening’s debate, but I can see that so many are interested and so I will curtail that part of my speech.
As I have indicated, on 31 March 2014 there were 95,486 pensioners in two separate BA pension schemes—28,144 in APS and 67,342 in NAPS. The matter before us tonight therefore affects a substantial number of people, some on very modest pensions—the average pension in APS is about £14,000 per annum and in NAPS it is about £12,000 per annum—and has what Captain Post has described as a “complex history”, going back to 1948, when APS was established. That scheme contained several unique features, including a unilateral trustee power of amendment and a no-worsening clause. Six trustees were appointed by the employer and six were elected by the members. Amendments required two thirds of trustees to ratify them; employer approval was not required.
In 1973, in return for substantial increases in contributions, members were invited to transfer to APS part 6 to enjoy unlimited inflation protection. In 1984, APS closed to new entrants, pending privatisation of BA, and NAPS was established.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The interest here in the House gives an indication of the interest among our constituents, too. Does the hon. Lady agree that given BA’s financial position with its pension scheme, with liabilities of £29.2 billion and assets of £29.3 billion, a move to de-risking would have made more sense and may have provided a greater surplus for the company and for the pension?
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I shall be developing that point further in my speech.
As I say, in 1984, pending privatisation, APS was closed and NAPS was established. BA went to considerable trouble at that time to inform existing APS pensioners of their options. I have here a copy of a staff newsletter from January 1984, which my constituent Mr Jones, an APS pensioner, has given to me. The newsletter, which includes a personal statement from Colin Marshall, then chief executive of BA, describes the details of the new scheme compared with the existing APS. It explains that APS pensioners can either choose to join NAPS, and receive a cash payment or extra pensionable years if they choose to do so, or to remain in the existing scheme. It states that the two schemes will be independent of one another, will not subsidise one another and will each be governed by their own scheme rules. It then describes the differences between the two schemes in relation to contribution rates, pension age, pensionable pay and, crucially for this debate, index linking.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate and on being appointed to the shadow Cabinet today. Many of my constituents are affected by this issue. Will she join me in calling on BA to play fair with those pensioners, be it in respect of those from 1984 or those from 2015?
Kate Green
I thank the hon. Gentleman and I very much hope that, seeing the strength of feeling around the House tonight, BA most certainly will realise that it must play fair.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on her new appointment today. Does she agree that as BA was controlled by the Conservative Government in 1984, when the undertaking was given, it is reasonable for BA pensioners, of whom I have a lot in my constituency, to expect some support from the current Conservative Government in order to ensure that undertakings given should be honoured? As she said, many of these people are on low incomes.
Kate Green
It is for Government—I am talking about any Government as this is not a party political matter—to honour commitments to these pensioners, and I will outline their obligations in this regard.
In relation to index linking, let me quote from the newsletter of January 1984. It says that the new scheme NAPS
“will be index linked in line with the cost of living index, up to a maximum of 5% in any one year. But it will not offer unlimited ‘inflation proofing’ like the present scheme”—
which is APS.
“If the rise in the cost of living index is below 5%, the pension will be raised by the actual amount, as it is under the existing scheme.”
Clearly, there is no specific reference there to which cost of living index was meant. But ABAP argues that it must have meant the retail prices index because the consumer prices index was not then in existence. Up to that point, it had indeed been the practice of the trustees to increase pensions in line with the annual review orders, which had adopted the RPI.
In any event, NAPS was set up, with approximately half of existing APS pensioners electing to move to the new scheme and the rest remaining in the APS. This must have disappointed BA, because Marshall openly acknowledged the existing scheme was an expensive one for the employer, though he also stated quite categorically that there would be no pressure on existing pensioners to move to the new scheme.
In 1996, a new attempt was made by BA to persuade APS members to transfer to NAPS. Interestingly, pensioners were told that their pension increase would be “broadly in line with RPI.” Then, in 1999 and 2000, attempts were made to merge the schemes, but that was overwhelmingly opposed by members, and the initial decision to do so was reversed by the trustees.
Meanwhile, a number of other changes to the trust deed governing the APS did take place, the most important being to replace so-called rule 13A with rule 34 in February 1986. This change, which was taken by an inquorate meeting of the trustees, dealt with the ability of trustees under rule 13A to pay augmented pensions, provided that BA gave the trustees the necessary funding to do so within four weeks.
Rule 34, which later became clause 24, did away with the requirement for BA to fund such increases if in effect the actuary agreed the fund was in surplus. Apparently, the reason was to bring APS in line with NAPS. Despite the fact that this decision was taken at a meeting of the trustees that was not quorate, the company used the power obtained at that meeting to order a further £330 million to be paid from the emerging surplus without being required to provide the funding. As a result, BA enjoyed a substantial contribution holiday from 1999 to 2003.
The pattern of poor governance—between 1986 and 1990 at least 11 trust deed and rule amendments were made without a quorum of trustees being present according to ABAP, and the chair of trustees was frequently absent—is the backdrop to the situation in summer 2010 when we come to the emergency Budget. Following the Chancellor’s decision to increase state benefits in line with CPI rather than RPI, the trustees announced that they too would abandon RPI as the index by which pensions were uprated and switch to the CPI. In its results statement on 25 Feb 2011, BA acknowledged that there would be a long-term gap of 0.5% between the two indices, amounting to £770 million. The benefit of this saving would accrue to BA’s Spanish shareholders.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I speak on behalf of British Airways APS pensioners in my constituency. What action can we take as individual Members of Parliament to urge British Airways to honour its clearly stated and express promise to pay RPI on these pensions every year? It is clear that CPI was not even invented when the original promise was made.
Kate Green
It is rare for so many Members to stay so late at night for an Adjournment debate on such a specialist subject. I very much hope that our presence here will be one of those steps that we can take collectively to put that pressure on British Airways.
Throughout the life of the pension schemes there had been regular revaluations of the pension fund, which consistently showed the APS to be in surplus, in contrast to the NAPS. In the triennial valuation that took place in 2012, one of the assumptions—it must in law have been agreed by British Airways—was stated to be that to allow for discretionary increases, pension increases were assumed to increase linearly from CPI in 2013 to RPI from 2023 onwards. ABAP argues that this demonstrates that British Airways has effectively recognised all along the force of its claim for RPI increases—it is the discretionary increases that are subject to the separate legal action.
In 2013 approximately 300 APS pensioners complained to the pensions ombudsman about the switch to CPI, while 25 pensioners launched action in the county courts claiming lost pension increases since CPI had been used to uprate their pensions in 2011. BA retaliated by elevating those cases to a test case in the High Court, the costs of which forced the claimants to withdraw their cases.
The result of all this is that British Airways pensioners today feel extremely and understandably aggrieved. They point to inquorate decisions, broken promises and, most recently, the removal of the independent chair of trustees by the company. Moreover, the willingness to consider the interests of shareholders ahead of pensioners creates a deep worry that British Airways’ long-term agenda might be to close its final salary schemes, to the benefit of shareholders. While they recognise, of course, that British Airways is now an independent company and no longer state-owned, they feel strongly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has suggested, that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that undertakings given before privatisation of the company and in connection with it are honoured.
Kate Green
If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not give way, because time is tight and I have several questions to put to the Minister.
What discussions have Ministers had with British Airways since the emergency Budget? What is the Minister’s view of British Airways’ high-handed—some might say bullying—behaviour? What steps are the Government taking to ensure satisfactory governance of pension schemes, including the British Airways schemes, in the light of this history of inquorate decisions, the recent firing by the company of the chair of trustees, repeated non-attendance at trustee meetings by a previous chair and the interests of the company apparently being put before those of the pensioners?
Can the Minister explain the inconsistency in approach to uprating pensions in line with RPI or CPI in state and ex-nationalised bodies? The BBC, the National Coal Board, the Lloyds Bank part of Lloyds TSB and the Bank of England all continue to uprate pensions by RPI, but British Airways does not, and neither apparently does the TSB side of the former Lloyds TSB.
Does the Minister recognise that the Government have a moral responsibility to ensure that promises made at the time of the privatisation of former state bodies are honoured? Does he agree that it would be right to infer that the commitment to uprating given to pensioners in 1984 referred to RPI, since that was the index in existence at the time, the index that trustees had in effect been applying to increases previously, and the index used to arrive at the fund valuation in 2012?
Most importantly, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the broken promises, the governance failures and the betrayal of British Airways pensioners on public confidence in pensions regulation and pensions policy? In 2007 the noble Baroness Altmann gave a talk to ABAP called, “How safe is your pension?” She talked about the integrity of pension promises and expressed her concern that people had been lied to about the security of their pensions by Government.
The noble Baroness is now the Pensions Minister. She has been writing to APS pensioners recently stating that it is inappropriate for Ministers to comment on the running of a private pension scheme. Surely that is not correct, when it is the scheme of a former state-owned company, and when the Minister herself has pointed in the past to pensions security being Government business. Does the Minister here this evening now agree that it is the Government’s business to ensure that undertakings given by what was at the time a Government-controlled company as part of a Government privatisation programme are properly honoured? Will he assure the House tonight that he will take steps to put pressure on British Airways to ensure that this is done in the case of the APS pensioners?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on her promotion to the shadow Cabinet, which I am sure will bring her much excitement, as well as much busyness? I also congratulate her on securing this debate. It is clear from this evening’s turnout, on both sides of the political divide, that this is certainly a popular issue, and one that affects many people, and therefore many Members of Parliament, in a wide variety of constituencies.
I trust that the hon. Lady, and colleagues throughout the Chamber, will appreciate that it is not appropriate for a Minister to comment on the running of individual schemes or individual trustee decisions. Moreover, I hope she will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on matters that are subject to ongoing legal proceedings, as is the case here. She will be aware, as will other Members, that the case brought by British Airways against the trustees is scheduled for a hearing for 25 days in February next year.
Kate Green
As I explained, there are two separate matters. I am not discussing the matter that is before the courts—it would be wholly inappropriate to do so in this House tonight—but raising a separate matter that is not the subject of litigation.
Mr Vara
The trust and British Airways—the whole organisation—have been the hon. Lady’s subject in this debate. Both are taking part in a debate concerning the trust that was originally set up in 1948. I think it is inappropriate to comment, because there is a huge overlap. She has been in the House for long enough to know, as have other Members, that in such a situation where there is pending litigation it is inappropriate and wrong for Ministers to comment. However, I can speak in a general way and, I hope, address some of the issues she has raised.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
I understand that the Minister is unable to comment directly, but does he accept that the High Court has described BA’s behaviour as entirely unrealistic and unreasonable?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend will be aware that the judiciary are completely independent of the Executive and, indeed, Parliament. It is not appropriate for me to comment on what the judiciary say because they are completely independent and entitled to say what they want in relation to court decisions.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Michael Tomlinson
I understand the comments that the Minister has made, but will he none the less accept the frustration felt by many people, including my constituents, at obtaining less than they had anticipated when saving for their retirement?
Mr Vara
I fully appreciate the frustration—indeed, anger—of people who were expecting something on their retirement but who will no longer receive it. I hope, however, that colleagues will recognise that the pension scheme was set up in 1948, at a time of nationalised industries when nationalisation was the norm, and we now live in a totally different climate with a totally different economy where the industry is not nationalised any more. We have to abide by the rules of the set-up of that pension scheme. As a trust, it is at arm’s-length from anything that the Government can do. People here who know trust law will appreciate that.
Legislation provides for a minimum level of indexation that applies to certain pensions. Currently, schemes must increase defined-benefit pensions that are in payment and were accrued between April 1997 and March 2006 by inflation capped at 5%. Pensions accrued from April 2006 onwards must be increased by inflation capped at 2.5%. The exact measure of inflation is not defined in legislation. It is for the Secretary of State to make a judgment each year on the measure to be used from those available.
The rules of an occupational pension scheme may make more generous provision than is required in legislation, either regarding pre-1997 accruals or providing for increases above the level of the statutory minimum. However, these are matters for schemes and the trustees; the scheme will have met its obligations under pension law by paying the statutory minimum.
I understand that the APS rules provide for the rate of increase to be the same as those specified in orders issued under section 59 of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which provides for public sector pension increases. Every year, public service pension increases are set out in an order issued by Treasury Ministers under section 59, which requires the Treasury to provide the same level of increase as the additional state pension that is set out in the social security benefits uprating order made by the Secretary of State under the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
The legislation, however, does not specify a particular index as the appropriate measure of price increases. The increase in the general level of prices has always been a matter for the Secretary of State to decide every year, and to help him make that decision he will look at the various indices of price increases. However, he only has to choose a suitable index—he does not have to choose the index that gives the highest possible increase.
In the past, the Government used the retail prices index as the measure of inflation. However, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has said, in 2010 the Government decided that the consumer prices index is a more appropriate measure of changes in the cost of living than the RPI for public service pensions, certain state pensions and benefits, and the statutory minimum increases for occupational pensions. Therefore, if the Secretary of State decides to use CPI as the measure of the general increase in prices, as is currently the case and has been since 2010, any scheme whose rules required increases under section 59 would find itself making increases on the same basis. I must emphasise that any payments in addition to that level will depend on scheme rules and the powers available to the trustees.
James Berry
Does the Minister agree that, while there is little the Government can do in a private trust matter that is currently before the High Court, there is much that British Airways could do for its 28,000 pensioners on the APS scheme, including my constituents, by facing up to either the letter or the spirit of its responsibilities?
Mr Vara
I am sure that British Airways is keeping a watchful eye on the Chamber and has noted the presence of not only those who have had the opportunity to speak, but the many others who support them.
Having explained the switch to CPI, I would like to return to the role of trustees in running pension schemes, including setting pension increases. I have explained that any increases above the statutory minimum are a matter for scheme rules and the trustees. In some cases, the increases will be at the discretion of the trustees; in others, the rate will be written into the rules. The House will appreciate, however, that in view of the issues in the ongoing High Court proceedings, I cannot comment on either the ambit or use of powers by the APS trustees.
Trustees of pension schemes are the same as those of any other trust, and much of what they do is governed by trust law. They have to act in line with the trust deed and scheme rules and they have to act impartially, prudently, responsibly and honestly, and in the best interests of beneficiaries. Those obligations apply regardless of whether trustees are nominated by the employer or by members. That means that trustees may have a potential conflict of interest, and the Pensions Regulator issues guidance on how trustees should manage them should they arise.
Trustees are also required, under pensions legislation, to undertake certain actions to ensure that the scheme is funded to meet its liabilities and that it can pay the right amount of benefits to the right people at the right time. Having set those parameters, the Government do not interfere in the running of individual schemes. Regulation of occupational schemes is undertaken by the Pensions Regulator. If it appears that trustees are not carrying out their duties correctly, the regulator may intervene. Alternatively, members may have recourse to the pensions ombudsman or the courts, which is the route being taken at present.
However, another party is involved: the sponsoring employer. The employer is ultimately responsible for putting enough money into the scheme to pay the benefits due under its rules, which is why it is essential for trustees and sponsoring employers to work together when agreeing the level of employer contributions—even more so if the scheme is in deficit and the employer has to pay in extra contributions to make good the shortfall. Inevitably, employers and trustees sometimes cannot resolve disputes, so it falls to the courts to determine the outcome. Sadly, that is the case here.
Kate Green
Will the Minister comment on the appropriate balance between the responsibility to the interests of the company and the trustees’ fiduciary responsibility to scheme members?
Mr Vara
It is a complex legal matter. There certainly are responsibilities, but they extend to trying to build a good working relationship with all concerned, as well as relationships that are in law. Having such a working relationship—it is not defined in law, but is common sense—is critical if we are to reach a proper solution. Sadly, that has not worked out in this instance, so we have this 25-day hearing, which is a significant amount of time. It is a very complex case about which much will clearly have to be said in due course. However, much has already been said.
I have but a few seconds in which to speak, so I simply say to the hon. Lady and colleagues that it is good to see so many Members in the Chamber for an Adjournment debate. Given that we were threatened with up to four votes, it is fortunate that we will all be able to get away this side of midnight. I commend the hon. Lady again for raising this matter. We await the result of the court case in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Percy.
The regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 March 2015, will require private sector landlords, from 1 October 2015, to have at least one smoke alarm installed on every storey of a rental property that is used as living accommodation and a carbon monoxide alarm in any room used as living accommodation where solid fuel is used. After that, the landlord must ensure that the alarms are in working order at the start of each new tenancy. Local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the regulations, which have been brought before the House because the Government want to increase the safety of private sector tenants.
Working alarms save lives; that is a simple fact. In the event of a fire in the home, a person is at least four times more likely to die if there is no working smoke alarm. Successive Governments of all parties and local fire and rescue authorities have made extensive use of non-regulatory approaches to increase the uptake of smoke alarms, including a series of highly effective public campaigns, such as “Fire Kills”. However, private rented sector tenants remain less likely to be protected by a working smoke alarm than any other tenure in the country. The Department for Communities and Local Government has also piloted alternatives to regulatory approaches to increase the installation of carbon monoxide alarms, but there are still high-risk properties without alarms installed.
Carbon monoxide poisoning is a serious and preventable form of poisoning. Each year, there are around 40 deaths from accidental carbon monoxide poisoning in England and Wales and in excess of 200 non-fatal cases requiring hospitalisation. We estimate that the new regulations will save at least 26 lives and nearly 700 injuries a year. I should be clear that the majority of landlords act responsibly and protect their tenants with working alarms. However, a small minority of private sector landlords have proved resistant to safety advice and recommended best practice. We decided that it was necessary to introduce the draft regulations to protect the tenants of such landlords.
A regulatory approach to the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms was discussed as part of the Government’s discussion paper, a “Review of property conditions in the private rented sector”, and the majority of responses were very much in favour. The regulations aim to increase tenants’ safety by ensuring that they are not subject to death, poisoning or injury by a lack of smoke or carbon monoxide warning alarms. The Government have funded local fire and rescue authorities to purchase a number of alarms for free distribution to such landlords, encouraging all landlords to act responsibly towards their tenants and helping them to comply with the regulations. Fire authorities across the country have worked on that over the summer, with some 8 million people contacted and liaised with. Alongside the regulations, the Department intends to continue to pursue non-regulatory solutions to boost regular testing and uptake of alarms across all sectors.
I will briefly address a concern raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments regarding the non-inclusion of a review clause in the regulations. The draft regulations were laid before Parliament in March, before the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 received Royal Assent. The Department acknowledges, however, that as of 1 July, Ministers are required to include a review provision in secondary legislation that regulates business or to publish a statement explaining why it is not appropriate to do so. If the draft regulations are approved by Parliament and made, the Department has committed to amend them by adding a review clause at the earliest suitable opportunity.
We are committed to creating a bigger and better private rented sector with good protections for tenants and to encouraging more investment in the sector. The regulations will set a new benchmark for alarm installation in private rented sector properties, making tenants safer and increasing property standards, while still supporting good landlords by not over-regulating or stifling the sector with unnecessary red tape. The regulations prove our commitment to continued improvement and to creating a private rented sector that works for and protects all. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Percy? I am pleased that the Government are, at last, listening to the concerns that have been expressed across the sector for some time about the need for more action to be taken by the Government to avert the dangers of fire and carbon monoxide poisoning.
Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are inexpensive and save lives, so I welcome the Government’s plans to make it compulsory for all properties in the private rented sector to have a smoke alarm on each floor and a carbon monoxide alarm in any room with a solid fuel heating system. It is good that the alarms need to be in proper working order at the start of a new tenancy.
It is shocking that 40 deaths and about 200 non-fatal hospitalisations result from carbon monoxide poisoning each year, yet 17% of private rented properties do not have a smoke alarm. A report by the Gas Safety Trust on carbon monoxide risks showed that the likelihood of an incident in privately rented accommodation is significantly higher than in any other housing sector. The report also shows that residents of rental properties are, on average, three times more likely to suffer a carbon monoxide-related incident. The regulations are therefore very much welcome, but I have a few questions for the Minister.
We know from the Government’s own figures that 40 deaths a year result from carbon monoxide poisoning, so why are the Government not simply making it a requirement that all private rented sector tenancies have carbon monoxide alarms and that they are checked to ensure they are in working order? The regulations place huge enforcement responsibilities on local authorities, and the Government need to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced to carry out that set of tasks. Many local authorities are facing huge funding cuts, and it is not clear how they will ensure that resources are available to enforce the regulations.
The Government’s impact assessment acknowledges that 9.6% of private rented sector landlords seem resistant to efforts to make them have these alarms fitted in their properties. What will the Government do to ensure that they reach out to landlords who are not providing smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms in their properties?
Why is the Minister not considering more regulation or licensing of private landlords? It would make access to them so much easier for local authorities and others, and it would make it easier to ensure that the alarms are fitted. In fact, the Government acknowledge that in the explanatory memorandum, in the context of licensing houses in multiple occupation. Paragraph 4 states that the regulations need not be applied to HMOs because this is already required through licensing. The obvious question is: why not just have licensing right across the sector? We would then not need to worry about non-compliance.
Will the Government make it clear what standard smoke alarms should be? The Residential Landlords Association has raised that concern publicly and with the Minister, and it wants some assurance that the alarms fitted will be of a good standard. The current guidance does not cover long leases or accommodation shared with the landlord. Will the Minister say a little more about why those are being excluded? Finally, I wanted to ask about the need for a review, but I heard what the Minister said, which was welcome as well.
Brandon Lewis
On the hon. Lady’s point about licensing, I think I am the first Minister for Housing and Planning to survive a general election. Having been in post for about 15 months, even I find it shocking that I am now facing the third shadow Minister for Housing and Planning in my time as the Minister, which might explain why the hon. Lady is not necessarily aware of the licensing issue. Only a few months ago, just before the general election, there was cross-party agreement on selective licensing. We introduced that just before the general election in agreement with her predecessor in the post. I hope that I might face the hon. Lady again in this post in due course.
Parliament agreed to selective licensing just a few months ago. Where there is an issue, local authorities can look at licensing in selective areas. As we outlined at the time, blanket licensing simply creates a tax on tenants. It passes a cost on to tenants through a regulatory burden that does not necessarily target where we need it to target.
On why certain tenancy agreements and housing tenures are excluded, the regulations are not aimed at social housing. They also do not apply where a long lease has been granted, as the hon. Lady rightly highlighted. Nor do they apply to live-in landlords, as they are not targeted at owner-occupied properties. The regulations are specifically aimed at the most at-risk properties.
As for the burdens on local authorities that the hon. Lady mentioned and the costs involved, we are assessing new burdens, but there is an ability for local authorities to take action. Civil penalties are up to £5,000. This year, from May to July, local and fire authorities spent time talking to the sector. About 8 million people have been approached, particularly by the fire and rescue authorities, which I commend for the excellent work and campaigning that they have done on this issue.
I thank Members for their attendance and the hon. Lady for the points she has made. I appreciate that there is in principle agreement on this matter. We want to reduce the risk that tenants face from fire and carbon monoxide poisoning without over-regulating. There is a fine balance. We have been clear about this, as I was at the Dispatch Box earlier today. I am determined that we drive out bad and rogue landlords. In light of the consultation document, I am looking at other issues and other ways to target bad landlords to give the best protection for tenants. We will look at what we can do legislatively as we go forward. However, we want to make sure that we do not create unnecessary burdens for the majority of good landlords. Those are the key messages behind the regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (NO. 2) order 2015
(9 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No.2) Order 2015.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The document that we are considering is short, but it is very important. Its object is to protect people from the drugs that it mentions. I apologise for not having been able to bring the order sooner; both the shadow Minister and I would have liked that to have happened, but this has been the earliest opportunity. We want orders such as this to come forward as early as possible—in fact, to ensure that they become unnecessary as a result of the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which has already gone through the other place.
I place on the record my thanks to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its continuous support and advice, particularly on this order and the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The order controls seven methylphenidate-based compounds and relates to section 2A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Perhaps it will be useful if I tell the Committee in layman’s terms about the “legal high” we are discussing. It is often used as a substitute for cocaine and is injected directly into a vein or artery. I found out yesterday that, in a documentary that is being produced, a gentleman was filmed injecting the drug directly into the artery in his groin as a substitute for cocaine. The product is very dangerous. Initially, five compounds within this bracket were to be placed under the order, but since that time—when the previous Minister was in post—two others have been added. We now want to ban seven compounds.
The methylphenidate-based compounds are highly potent stimulants. One is marketed online as an alternative to cocaine. Harms include anxiety, paranoia, visible disturbance of the veins and arteries, chest pain and a strong urge to reuse—the compounds are highly addictive. They have become a dangerous problem in parts of the United Kingdom. Police in Scotland particularly asked for the order to be made as they had seen the use of and damage caused by the compounds increase hugely.
Since the temporary order has been in place, attendances at A and E in Scotland as a result of infections and overdoses from the compounds have dropped dramatically. We can see where the expert advice is telling us to go, and that is why the order needs to be agreed today.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I welcome the order as well as the upcoming Psychoactive Substances Bill. There is no evidence of the Government’s family impact test in the impact assessment. In future, it would be good to include that test in such assessments. People will recognise that the issues the order raises have a significant impact on the family.
Mike Penning
My hon. Friend has made an important point. I was not aware that the family impact test was not in the assessment, but we should make sure that it is in all these assessments. We always assume that the impact is only on the individual, but the effect on families and loved ones is absolutely huge. My hon. Friend also mentioned the Psychoactive Substances Bill; we hope that that will receive its Second Reading before Christmas, after which this sort of statutory instrument will no longer be required. With that in mind, I hope the Committee will approve the order.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Let me start by thanking the Minister for setting out so clearly the purpose of the order before us. I have been coming along to Committees considering orders like this for five years now, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank him and his colleagues for the courtesy they have shown me over those five years by providing information and for the support that officials have given me when I have sought further information. As we live in uncertain times, I am not sure whether I will be speaking from this exact position again, so I wanted to put on record my thanks for that support from the Minister.
Mike Penning
I do not want to delay the Committee, but I thank the shadow Minister very much for her comments. I hope she will remain in place, because this issue is something she is passionate about, and that passion is something that all of us who come to this House should have. If she does not remain in place, I am sure that, whether from the Back Benches or wherever else she is, she will continue to get that support from my Department on the work she does in this area.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful to the Minister. I will certainly be taking an enormous amount of interest, in whatever capacity, to the Bill that said he would be introducing before Christmas.
The Opposition welcome the order before us. I do not wish to delay the Committee too long, but I want to ask some questions. This is the latest in a long line of statutory instruments that I have debated over the past five years, as the Government have struggled to keep pace with the explosion of new psychoactive substances. As with previous orders, we are today discussing a ban for a group of related compounds. What is unusual about today’s order is that it introduces only a temporary ban. The Government promised that the introduction of temporary bans would transform the UK’s response to new psychoactive substances. In fact, the power has been used only four times, while hundreds of new psychoactive substances have emerged on the UK market.
I want to emphasise, as the Minister did, the dangers of these drugs. I thoroughly support what he said about the result of taking these particular substances. It is important to highlight the review that was conducted by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I am grateful for the work it does to assist us in making our decisions.
The types of dangers we are discussing today are not dissimilar to those associated with other new psychoactive substances that we have been discussing over the previous few years: a lack of control, a danger of overdosing, chest pain, paranoia and hypertension. However, it is particularly worrying to see reports that this drug is highly addictive, as the Minister said, with users frequently needing to re-dose, often with needles. Clearly this suggests that it poses a particular public health threat. It is of course tragic that the drug has been linked with a death, as set out in the accompanying documents.
I want to make three short points. First, I want to highlight the delays in taking action against these drugs. According to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, ethylphenidate was first identified in the UK in 2011. The EMCDDA’s partner organisation in the UK is the National Poisons Information Service. That suggests that the drug was detected in hospital admissions as far back in 2011. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs report said that ethylphenidate was identified by surveys of online new psychoactive substances stores back in 2011, and it was first linked with a drugs death in the UK in 2013. I know that the Minister apologised for the delay in getting the order before us, but I wonder why it has taken so long to get to this point. Even if we take it from 2013, that is still two years.
There appear to have been delays at every stage of the process. Although the drug was first identified in the UK in 2011, it was not until 2014 that it was included in the UK’s forensic early warning system report. It then took a further year for the ACMD to assess the evidence and six months from the ACMD making a recommendation to Parliament discussing a temporary ban. Denmark, Austria, Germany, Hungary, the US, Australia, Sweden, Turkey, Portugal and even Jersey have already acted to ban the drug. Given that the UK has the world’s second largest legal highs market, can the Minister explain why he thinks it has taken so long to get to this point and why we appear to be so far behind those other countries?
The Minister referred to the new Psychoactive Substances Bill, which the Opposition fully support and have called for over a long period. It is coming to the House of Commons shortly. The Bill should address the issue of the supply of these drugs while their dangers are being evaluated. However, it will not address the serious shortage of capacity in the evaluation process. The Government need to consider that urgently. I would welcome the Minister’s view on the capacity of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to carry out its functions.
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister about analogue bans—a change in the drugs laws introduced in the last five years, supposedly to address the spread of new psychoactive substances. I would like to know why an analogue ban, covering all the derivatives of methylphenidate, was not introduced in 2012 when the Government did ban other substances, most notably desoxypipradrol. All the other substances that we are discussing today are linked to methylphenidate. Why was an analogue ban that would have stopped the spread of these new substances not pursued in 2012?
Finally, I turn to education and public awareness. The Government’s efforts to control the supply of these drugs have been slow and I am concerned about the need to inform the public about the harms of legal highs. Sadly, people taking these drugs still think “legal” means safe. They are often taken in by heavy and misleading advertising from online and high-street head shops. Take, for example, the drugs we are discussing today. They are sold under generic street names such as “Gogaine” and “Burst”. Previously, those names referred to other substances; as those were banned, the component substances were changed. The unsuspecting user does not know that. We have to address that huge lack of understanding among young people, who are often tempted to take these drugs.
In its report on drugs, the Home Affairs Committee said that prevention and education were given the least attention within the Government’s drugs strategy. The expert panel on legal highs assembled by the Government last year, or early this year, called for a comprehensive strategy to increase public understanding. We need a clear national campaign and to consider again the issue of drugs education in schools. Public Health England should also put forward its views about how to tackle the issue.
There has not really been a proper attempt to engage with young people through social media, which are so important these days. In his response, the Minister will no doubt talk to me about the “Frank” website—all Ministers over the past five years have. Although that has its place, I do not think it is providing the full answer to how we educate young people on these issues. The Labour-led Welsh Government are going for a broader and more inclusive response to new psychoactive substances, looking at health and education messaging. I hope the Minister will be willing to consider the Welsh model and what can be learned from it. Finally, what work is being done to co-ordinate cross-departmental work on NPS as well as work with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments?
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on those three points. As I said at the beginning, the Opposition fully support the order.
Mike Penning
I thank the shadow Minister for her support and the work that she has done over many years. If I do not answer all her questions fully this afternoon, I will write to her personally and copy in the other members of the Committee.
The hon. Lady is right to say that methylphenidate was identified under the forensic early warning system in 2011. It has been monitored by the ACMD since and has gained localised popularity as an injecting drug. The committee gave us that advice, which is why we have acted as we have today. I do not know exactly why it was not included back in 2012; I understand that a more descriptive answer is needed.
I am not going to say that “Frank” does for this area and the language around legal highs, although it does a lot of other work. We all get told we should not use the phrase “legal highs”, but that is what the youngsters and others call these substances, so we should use language that others understand. A lot of people feel that the substances are safe because they are legal.
Given the support of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I hope the new legislation will be on the statute book by April, and it will mean that we are not playing catch-up anymore. The hon. Lady named several countries that are in advance of us on such orders, but there have been some 500 changes to drugs that we have banned—I am no scientist, but I understand that they have merely been tweaked. The new legislation will ban all psychoactive substances and we will then re-insert the ones we would like to have—for instance caffeine, without which I would not be able to survive for a day. We are learning a lot from the mistakes in Ireland as well as the positive things—I have visited Ireland and met with their scientists and Ministers. I also recently met the New Zealand justice Minister. New Zealand is going to adjust its legislation in the direction of what we are doing, because it introduced a partial ban, which makes things even more complicated.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we must ensure that the scientific experts have the capacity to do the work they are doing, and I have had assurances that that is the case. She is also absolutely right that this work has to be done across Government. If necessary, I will set up an inter-ministerial group to bring in all the other Departments that have to come to the table on this issue, so that we can educate young people not just about psychoactive drugs, but about drugs in general, including those that they think are safe, such as cannabis. We know about the dangers of those sorts of drugs, but sadly there are a lot of people who want to legalise them. I would advise those people to go and talk to the experts about the damage they can do.
I accept the points that the hon. Lady has made: there is a lot of work to be done, but we are now stepping up to the plate. I hope this will be the last such order. We will have new legislation that will enable us to get ahead of the scientists who keep tweaking the formulae and damaging the lives of families and their loved ones in the most destructive way. With that in mind, I hope the Committee will agree to the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015
(9 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 2015.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I know that as a Scot you take a close interest in all matters that relate to Scotland.
If it pleases the Committee, I shall provide a brief summary of the background to the order and set out what it seeks to achieve. When the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was passed, it provided that the next general election for membership of this Parliament would occur on 7 May 2020. That same Act also provided that the next Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election would be on 5 May 2016. The Scotland Act 1998, to which I shall refer as the 1998 Act, provides for the poll at Scottish parliamentary ordinary general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every fourth year. All this combines to mean that, as things currently stand, there are due to be general elections to both the UK and Scottish Parliaments on 7 May 2020.
It is agreed that a clash of elections is undesirable and this Government have always been committed to ensuring that any clash is avoided. The Government are also committed to implementing the recommendations of the Smith commission agreement. One of those recommendations is that the Scottish Parliament should have all powers in relation to Scottish parliamentary and local government elections in Scotland.
As the Committee will know, the current Scotland Bill makes provision to implement that recommendation. However, as both the UK and Scottish Governments agree that Scottish parliamentary electors should be aware of the term of the Scottish Parliament to which they are electing Members when they vote in May 2016, we are faced with an issue of timing. If the Scottish Parliament is to legislate in advance of the May 2016 election to determine a date for the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after that one, the power to do so needs to be devolved now.
Devolving that power is exactly what this order does. The order is made under section 30 of the 1998 Act. Section 30 provides a mechanism whereby schedule 4 or schedule 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. The order amends both schedules 4 and 5 to the 1998 Act. First, schedule 4 to the 1998 Act lists enactments that are protected from modification by the Scottish Parliament. Much of the 1998 Act itself is included in this list. As I have already mentioned, the 1998 Act provides for the poll at Scottish parliamentary ordinary general elections to be held on the first Thursday in May every fourth year. Section 2(2) of the 1998 Act makes that particular provision. The order therefore amends schedule 4 to the 1998 Act to allow an Act of the Scottish Parliament to modify section 2(2) in relation to the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after 2016.
Secondly, as the Committee knows, schedule 5 to the 1998 Act lists the matters that are reserved to this Parliament. Among other things, elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament are reserved. In order that the Scottish Parliament can determine the day of the poll at the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after 2016, the order will amend schedule 5 to provide that that matter will no longer be a reserved matter. The amendments to both schedules will combine to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the power to determine the date of the first Scottish parliamentary ordinary general election after that to be held next May. The order also amends section 2 of the 1998 Act in connection with the amendments to schedules 4 and 5.
However, the order places certain limitations on the day that can be chosen. Specifically, the order will prevent the day of the poll determined by the Scottish Parliament from being the same as the day of the poll at a UK parliamentary general election, other than an early parliamentary general election, a European parliamentary general election or an ordinary local government election in Scotland. I would like to make it clear that those limitations were recommended in the Smith commission agreement.
The order demonstrates the Government’s commitment to honouring the Smith commission agreement. It also demonstrates the way in which this Government can work effectively with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I commend the order to the Committee.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
As always, it is a great pleasure to serve while you are in the Chair, Mr Gray.
The Opposition do not disagree with the order. I thank the Secretary of State for his introductory remarks and I will pose just two questions in response to his explanation of the order. The first is a more general question of whether he envisages any other reasons for introducing a section 30 order before the Scotland Bill gains Royal Assent, hopefully very shortly in this Parliament. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman did not touch on the modification of schedule 5 in article 3(2)(a), which refers to inserting
“‘The reduction of the minimum voting age’”
under “‘Exception 1’”. Will the Secretary of State cover in his summing up exactly what that means for devolving that power? I hope that it devolves the power to the Scottish Parliament to decide to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote.
I thank the Secretary of State for being here for his first Statutory Instrument Committee of this parliamentary term. However, it may be his last, and the Deputy Leader of the House will ably deputise for him in future such Committees—not because he has upset the Prime Minister; I do not want to start any vicious rumours of his demise from the Cabinet.
With those two brief questions, I emphasise that we are grateful for the order’s being introduced quickly so that the Scottish Parliament has the power to determine its elections timetable from next year.
David Mundell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I felt that it was appropriate to introduce the order myself because it is a very important measure that relates to the Scotland Bill.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have already taken forward the order that allows the Scottish Parliament to determine whether 16 or 17-year-olds can vote in next year’s Scottish parliamentary elections, and the Scottish Parliament has decided to allow them to vote. We should take this opportunity to encourage everyone to register so that all eligible 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in those elections.
I have discussed with the Scottish Government the delivery of the Smith commission report’s recommendations, and we agreed that if it were necessary to meet the timing of the transfer of the Work programme arrangements, I would be willing to consider introducing a section 30 order to fit in with the Scottish Government’s roll-out of their proposed Work programme. However, at the moment, we believe that, should the Scotland Bill be enacted according to the timescale currently envisaged—by next spring—that will allow the Scottish Government to move forward with the Work programme as they would wish.
I hope that clarification satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft African Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2015
(9 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft African Development Bank (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 2015.
Mr Chope, it is always a pleasure to benefit from the stewardship and guidance of the Chair, but particularly so when you are in it.
The African Development Bank provides economic development for the continent of Africa. Africa is in great want of jobs to provide livelihoods for its people. One of the principal impediments to economic growth and the development of those jobs is a chronic shortage of infrastructure, which creates a barrier to trade. Equally, poor governance often gets in the way of commercial activity and trade.
We believe that the focus of the Department for International Development matches very well the focus of the African Development Bank, with the importance that it places on private sector-led economic development, to breaking down barriers to trade and to governance. The bank’s recent success has often been ascribed to its president, Mr Kaberuka, who stood down in May. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), was privileged to attend the annual general meeting and see his successor, Dr Adesina, elected with our support from a strong field of eight candidates. We believe that he will make an excellent president of the bank. He is a former Agriculture Minister who has worked for the World Bank and has experience in the United States and west Africa. He speaks several languages and we believe that he has the focus, energy and enterprise to build on the achievements of his predecessor.
The African Development Bank promotes development in two different ways. The first is through the African Development Fund, providing grants to countries that have a poor credit rating. We hold a 14% burden share in that fund, having committed some £600 million in the period 2014 to 2016. The order is not concerned with that fund. The other way in which the bank makes development possible is by providing loan capital to countries and private enterprises with a good credit rating through its ordinary capital subscribed by members of the bank. In its book for 2014, it made UA 4.5 billion in new loans available, of which 55% were for infrastructure.
The bank maintains a ratio between regional and non-regional members of 60:40. The last general capital increase was in 2011, when the capital subscribed rose by 200% to take account of the international financial crisis. There now arises an opportunity for us to acquire more capital in the bank. First, several non-regional countries were unable to take up their subscriptions to the 2011 increase, so 1,453 shares are now available to us. Equally, the ratification of the membership of South Sudan has altered the 60:40 ratio. To maintain it at 60:40, more shares are available to the non-regional players. Our allocation is 3,157 shares, only 6% of which have to be paid in. The rest are callable capital, a contingent liability for holding for which we have received the permission of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Of the 6% that have to be paid in, taking the shares that are now available to us, the amount that we would have to pay by the 2 October deadline, which we will meet if the order is passed, is some £2.76 million, but the order asks for just shy of £8 million. We are asking for more because we estimate that, as previously, several countries will not be able to make the very tight deadlines to acquire their shares. We want to have the flexibility within the even tighter deadlines that then follow to be able to purchase those additional shares.
Why do we want to do it? The simple fact is that we currently have the smallest shareholding of the G7 members, at 1.7% of the shares available. That does not buy us a lot of influence. Over the longer term, we want to significantly increase our shareholding in order to increase our influence over the bank’s operations. Secondly, we regard the bank as very good value for money. Our £2.8 million subscription for the shares that we have been definitely allocated will give rise to £43 million of additional lending, which means £43 million towards creating jobs, so it is good value for money. Of course, it will have the side effect of reinforcing our support for Dr Adesina and the new regime at the bank.
I hope I have persuaded the Committee that there are good reasons for proceeding with the order.
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope.
We should be proud of Britain’s history under successive Governments of providing funding to multilateral investment organisations such as the African Development Bank that work to tackle poverty and engender sustainable economic growth. Members may not realise that we first joined the African Development Fund in 1973 and the African Development Bank when membership was extended to non-regional countries in 1983, so Britain has an important long-standing relationship with the organisation.
In Europe, we take for granted the ready availability of transport networks and public utilities such as running water, energy and telecommunications. Most of our businesses know that they can access finance in order to expand. Those are fundamental prerequisites for growth and prosperity. Without them, public services and education are held back, entrepreneurial drive and talent risk being wasted and the outlook for a country’s development is bleak. Development is dependent upon getting the essential infrastructure right. Investing in the sort of projects the Minister outlined pays dividends several times over. For that reason, we will seek to support him in taking the order forward.
Since beginning operations, the African Development Bank has mobilised financial resources for more than 4,500 projects, with contributions totalling more than $118 billion. The assistance the bank provides comes in many forms: lending for infrastructure projects; funding for programmes and studies in agriculture, education, industry and governance; and technical assistance and policy advice. Its commitment to sustainable growth is of particular relevance to our age as we come face to face with the spectre of climate change, and as the world comes together to agree the sustainable development goals. That is why it is encouraging to see the bank’s support of clean, renewable energy projects in countries across Africa and its emphasis on green growth.
The bank’s recently published African competitiveness report makes it abundantly clear that Africa is a growing continent with real potential for even further growth if the necessary conditions for prosperity are in place. Over the past 15 years, the continent’s GDP growth as a whole has averaged more than 5% a year, and the growing consumer markets in many countries herald further possibilities.
I turn briefly to the detail of the order, and I have a few questions for the Minister. Britain’s contributions to multilateral development banks are among the smartest investments in international development that we can make. The African Development Bank is a positive, African-led vehicle for development lending, and that is why we will not oppose the Government’s plans to increase their shareholding in the bank by taking advantage of newly available shares under the special capital increase and shares forfeited from the sixth general capital increase.
We agree with the Government’s wish to add to the UK capital stock by purchasing the additional shares allocated to us, with a paid-in value of £2.7 million. As well as allowing the bank to provide more development lending, that increased investment will lend greater weight to Britain’s vote on issues facing the bank. That is desirable given the UK’s historically small shareholding in the bank, as it will bring us closer to the G7 nations that have a significantly larger shareholding—our European partners in Germany, at 4.1%, and in France, at 3.8%.
We also acknowledge that, if Britain were to refuse the opportunity of subscribing to the shares or miss the deadline, the UK’s shareholding would decrease. Both for the good of the bank and to maintain Britain’s influence, we agree that that should be avoided. We note that the share purchase will give rise to a contingent liability of some £43.3 million in shares, which could be called for should the bank find itself in serious difficulty, but given the bank’s strong triple A credit rating—something that even the UK has not managed to maintain throughout the past five years—and its history of never having called in such shares, we acknowledge that the contingent liability is highly unlikely to turn into a loss. It is therefore our judgment that we should support the order.
However, as the Minister explained, in addition to calling for the approval of a further £2.8 million of investment in capital stock, the order seeks permission for further shares to be purchased, up to a total of some £8 million, should they become available. Although in principle we would support the Government making further payments to increase our capital investment and our influence on the board of the bank, the Committee ought to consider the potential for a much higher contingent liability of some £124.6 million as a consequence of purchasing those additional shares.
Increasing the UK’s shareholding by the full £7.95 million sought in the order would leave the UK’s total contingent liability with the African Development Bank at about £1.1 billion. What assessment has the Minister made of the likelihood that members that have been unable to meet the October deadline will forfeit shares reissued under the sixth GCI? I would also welcome any estimate that has been made of the number of shares that might realistically become available.
I understand from the Department’s written statement of 14 July that the sum of £7.95 million represents the total amount of reissued GCI shares available to all shareholders, as well as the UK’s special capital increase allocation. That means that the Department is giving itself a significant degree of leeway and suggests that the Minister believes that, as he said earlier, a substantial number of shares may be forfeited before the October deadline. To reassure the Committee that the Department’s request for that flexibility is justified, I would welcome any additional detail he might have, including which countries may forfeit.
Whenever we use taxpayers’ money, we must always consider whether it is being spent or invested wisely. Even when projects and organisations are working well, we must always bring our scrutiny to bear. Improving results for the world’s poorest people and ensuring value for money mean that we must monitor, evaluate and look for improvements. Will the Minister reassure me that the Department is satisfied that increasing Britain’s stake in the bank and taking on the accompanying further contingent liabilities will contribute to DFID’s influence and its strategic priorities, and represent a good use of the country’s resources? I know that, as part of the Department’s multilateral aid review, there has not been a dedicated assessment of the African Development Bank.
A review has been carried out of the UK’s funding of the African Development Fund, part of the African Development Group, and has highlighted some concerns about its progress on cross-cutting issues, namely gender, fragile contexts and climate change, as well as cost and value consciousness. I would welcome the Minister’s view on whether those concerns that relate to the African Development Fund are relevant to the bank, and any other assessment he can provide of the bank’s performance.
Although scrutiny of spending and investments is always necessary, it seems clear that the African Development Bank is a valuable force in the fight for development, and that the Government’s wish to increase Britain’s involvement in the bank is justified. It therefore gives me pleasure to support the order on behalf of the Opposition, endorsing the Government’s approach and proposals for increasing Britain’s investment in the African Development Bank, provided that the Minister can give us the reassurances that we seek.
Mr Swayne
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and questions. He initially asked about the bank’s importance in furnishing studies. That is important, and we are grateful for its study on transport costs. We have asked them to conduct a similar study on driving down energy costs.
The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about two things. First, he asked about taking on the additional contingent liabilities. I felt that he answered his own question effectively, in that we are considering a triple A-rated institution—there has never been any call on the capital. We estimate that it is worth taking on the liability, and we have received the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s permission to do that.
I believe that buying the additional influence is some way off. Even if we got all the shares, increasing our influence is a long-term prospect. There is a key change: among the non-regional players, shareholdings determine how long they hold the directorship. That is an important means of influencing the process. In the longer term, we are therefore keen to increase our influence and to purchase the shares.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the multilateral aid review. The last review said that we were getting good value for money, and that the bank’s performance was generally very good. There was some concern at the corporate level about the lack of emphasis on women and girls, and also about climate change, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The MAR is not a one-off process. We provided, because of our determination to improve the bank’s performance, £2 million of technical assistance to enable it to improve. A special envoy on gender has been appointed and we are confident that the bank is performing well on that metric. On climate change, the bank’s 10-year plan is to make Africa transform into a clean energy continent. Increasing the focus on climate change is welcome and now meets our requirements.
I think that that accounts for all the questions that I have been asked. I have been informed that I may have made a slight slip with my figures. I very much doubt it! I referred to £4.5 million lending from 2013. I should have said that it relates to 2014 to 2016 and that it takes the form of concessional loans as well as grants.
DRAFT Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2015
(9 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mark Lancaster)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force legislation governing the armed forces, the Armed Forces Act 2006, for a further period of one year until November 2016. This reflects the constitutional requirement under the Bill of Rights that the armed forces may not be maintained without the consent of Parliament.
The legislation that makes the necessary provision for the armed forces to exist as disciplined forces is renewed every year. There is five-yearly renewal by Act of Parliament, which is the primary purpose of the Armed Forces Acts. Between Acts, there must be an annual Order in Council, and that is the draft order that we are considering today.
I should say something about why we need to keep the 2006 Act in force. If the Order in Council is not made by the end of 2 November 2015, the Armed Forces Act 2006 will automatically expire. The effect would be to end the powers and provisions necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies.
The 2006 Act applies to all service personnel, wherever in the world they are operating. It makes nearly all the provisions for the existence of a system of command, discipline and justice for the armed forces, covering such matters as offences, the power of service police and the jurisdiction and powers of commanding officers and service courts, in particular the court martial. It is the basis of the service justice system that underpins the maintenance of discipline throughout the chain of command, which is fundamental to the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.
The 2006 Act also provides for a number of other matters that are important for the armed forces, such as their enlistment, their pay and the redress of complaints. Members of the armed forces have no contract of employment, and so no duty as employees. While they owe a duty of allegiance to Her Majesty, their obligation is essentially a duty to obey lawful orders. Without the 2006 Act, commanding officers and the court martial would have no powers of punishment for either disciplinary or criminal misconduct. That is why the Act is so important, and why we need to continue it in force.
The order will continue in force the 2006 Act until the end of 2 November 2016, when a new Act of Parliament will be required to provide for the legislation to continue for the next five years. We therefore expect the next Armed Forces Bill to be introduced into Parliament soon, and I look forward to full and interesting debates on it, and on matters of great importance to our armed forces, during its passage through the House.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
We have no objections to the order and look forward to the passage of the Armed Forces Bill, and we would like to add our support for the armed forces.
Question put and agreed to.
EU general budgets for 2015 and 2016
(9 years, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the relevant documents to the Committee? Mr Rees-Mogg, do you wish to speak?
The Chair
No. I have on my notes “likely to be Jacob Rees-Mogg”. As we have an outbreak of good humour, I call the Minister to make the opening statement. You have no more than 10 minutes, Minister.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. An outbreak of good humour is only to be expected in the circumstances.
I thank Members for their attendance at this debate and for providing the opportunity for me to present the Government’s position on the EU budget. As members of the Committee will be aware, we remain in the midst of one of the biggest debt crises to have hit Europe. In response, this Government, like other Governments across the EU, have taken the difficult but necessary decision to consolidate our public finances and implement structural reforms. We have been clear that the EU budget, which is funded by EU taxpayers, cannot be immune to reform. The Government have delivered on this in Brussels, not least through the multi-annual financial framework deal secured by the Prime Minister in 2013.
In the 2005 MFF negotiation under the Labour Government, the UK’s rebate came under attack, as it so often does in Europe. Under pressure, the previous Government folded. This cost British taxpayers more than €9 billion over the 2007-13 period. By contrast, in the 2013 MFF deal, the Prime Minister protected our rebate, and also prevented new EU-wide taxes to finance EU spending. The Prime Minister’s deal did not only mean a smaller EU budget; it meant an EU budget that was better focused on areas that are important for the UK.
Within the smaller overall MFF, expenditure has been reorientated towards areas that provide higher value for money to the British taxpayer: namely, high-value research and development, universities and other pro-growth investment. Last year’s annual budget negotiations were trying, but I am pleased to tell the House that the current proposal from the Commission for the 2016 annual budget is consistent with the MFF annual ceilings. The Commission proposed €143.5 billion in payments and €153.8 billion in commitments, with the recently agreed European fund for strategic investments deal, which is below the annual MFF ceilings by €1.2 billion on payments and €2.1 billion on commitments, making it a more reasonable proposal than those of the past two years. The cash increase of 1.6% is smaller than previous year-on-year increases, showing the impact of the MFF deal. Nevertheless, the UK, along with like-minded states, has continued to push for savings in order to reduce waste and inefficiency.
On 4 September, the Council unanimously agreed its position on the Commission’s proposal on the draft budget. The Council cut the Commission’s proposal by approximately €1.4 billion in payments and €0.6 billion in commitments so that both commitments and payments are €2.6 billion below the annual MFF ceilings. The UK received full support from our usual budget disciplinarian allies—Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands—in achieving these cuts to the Commission’s proposal.
The Government supported this deal because we judged that it reflected the need for fiscal discipline while preserving funding to key areas supporting jobs and growth, and responding to external pressures. For example, the Council position increases funding compared to last year for Horizon 2020 by 9% for research and development, and increases pro-growth spend overall under heading 1a by 9%, while the external aid budget under heading 4 has increased by 22%, enabling the union to respond more effectively to external pressures. As negotiations on the final deal continue with the European Parliament in the autumn, the Government will continue to work closely with our allies in Council to ensure the best possible deal for UK taxpayers.
As well as the Commission’s draft budget 2016, a number of related documents have been held for debate. I shall now address them in turn. The mobilisation of the EU solidarity fund is a separate document alongside the draft 2016 budget, which proposes the sum of €50 million, or £35.6 million, in commitment and payment appropriations in the 2016 budget to provide a reserve for rapid disbursement of funds to member states before more substantive support is agreed. The Commission included that amount in the draft 2015 budget and it is a requirement of the EU solidarity fund regulation as amended in May last year.
We are supportive of the principles of the EU solidarity fund in providing support when an EU country is seriously affected by a major natural disaster. Natural disasters, which in most cases cannot be foreseen, bring new pressures to bear on the EU budget. However, we do not believe that new pressures should necessarily lead to requests for new money from member states, which is why we consistently press the Commission to identify possibilities for reallocation within existing budgets, when mobilising the EU solidarity fund for substantive support to member states, before requesting additional funds. Indeed, that reflects the inter-institutional agreement on budgetary discipline of December 2013, which requires the Commission to take into account the scope for reallocations to fund EU solidarity fund applications.
A proposal to mobilise the flexibility instrument was also appended to the draft budget. The instrument exists to allow the financing of expenditure that cannot be covered within the ceiling limits of an area of the budget. In the 2016 budget, heading 3 was short on commitment appropriations due to pressures arising from the migration crisis. As the Committee is aware, the Prime Minister has expressed support for EU-wide action to tackle the migration crisis and, in this case, the flexibility instrument provides a means of meeting those emergency funding requirements. Moreover, the proposed commitments budget for 2016 is more than sufficient comfortably to meet such funding requirements without incurring any breach of annual or global multi-annual financial framework ceilings.
That recognition of the need for the EU budget to respond to new pressures does not change our commitment to ensure overall financial discipline and respect for the MFF limits. As with the EU solidarity fund, we continue to urge the Commission to seek reallocations from areas of lesser priority when new pressures emerge. The Prime Minister has clearly set out that special instruments spending exists in the EU budget specifically to respond to new events, and that it is important to control that as well.
After releasing the 2016 draft budget proposal, the Commission issued an amending letter to the proposal to reflect agreement reached in June on the financing of the European fund for strategic investments, a guarantee fund to help plug the current investment gap in the EU by mobilising private financing for strategic investments. The Government supported the EFSI agreement as a way to raise growth prospects throughout Europe while being fully consistent with the MFF deal.
The Government also welcomed the protection of specific research programmes within Horizon 2020, including the Marie Sklodowska-Curie actions programme and the spreading excellence and widening participation programme, as part of the agreement reached on EFSI. The amending letter, which has now been incorporated into the Council’s position on the draft budget, increases the commitment appropriations available to Horizon 2020 and the connecting Europe facility by around €153 million and €150 million respectively, resulting in an overall increase in commitment appropriations in the 2016 budget by €303 million.
As for the 2015 budget, the Commission has issued a number of draft amending budgets, which have all been adopted in Europe, except the latest, DAB 6. In line with the routine annual practice, it provides for a revision in the forecast of member state contributions to the EU budget to reflect the latest economic data and forecasts provided and agreed by member states in March every year. The changes in that DAB were already anticipated in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent forecast in July.
DAB 6 is important because it contains the rebate that we will receive on the 2014 surcharge payment. It confirms that we will receive the rebate in the same year as our making the surcharge payment, rather than with a year’s lag. It also sets out that we will receive a rebate that is higher than estimated by the Commission last autumn, so the total net surcharge payment from the UK to the EU will be under £0.8 billion, less than half of the original bill of £1.7 billion.
As we enter the final few months of negotiations on the annual budget, we face the usual challenges that we have come to expect from Brussels. The European Parliament will agree its final position on the budget on 28 October. I can confidently predict that it will seek to increase significantly the Commission’s proposal and leave a much-reduced margin below the annual MFF ceiling. I can equally confidently predict that many member states—in particular, net recipient member states—will support that.
Despite those challenges, we remain fully committed to obtaining the best deal for the UK and the British taxpayer. Our objective is an agreement for 2016 that supports the delivery of the Prime Minister’s MFF and achieves the greatest possible amount of restraint in the framework. This is a negotiation and the outcome will ultimately be decided by a qualified majority in the Council, which is why working closely with our like-minded allies, as we have done successfully to date, is so important.
Today the Committee has the opportunity to present a united front in favour of restraint in the annual budget from 2016 and to give the Government a strong mandate to continue to work with like-minded member states in pressing for necessary restraint and discipline in the budget negotiations this autumn in order to get the best deal for UK taxpayers.
The Chair
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the Minister. May I remind Members that these should be brief? It is open to a Member, subject to my discretion, to ask related, supplementary questions.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Walker. It is a pleasure to speak in this Committee, the first time that I have done so with you in the Chair. May I thank you for chairing our proceedings today? I hope it is helpful if I group my questions.
First, on the draft decision about the use of the EU solidarity fund in 2016 for financial assistance to eligible states affected by major national disasters or extraordinary regional disasters, the terrible floods experienced by Romania, Bulgaria and Italy in 2014 caused extensive damage to the economic and productive sectors in many towns and cities in those countries. The UK was a beneficiary of the solidarity fund after the 2007 floods; I am sure Members remember those floods and the difficulties they caused for many constituents. We received £127 million to help with their aftermath.
I agree and have constantly said in debates on these matters that there is a need for budgetary restraint and reform in the EU budget. I spoke strongly about that in the debate on the European Union (Finance) Bill. Will the Minister make his position on the solidarity fund clearer? Will he accept the need to help countries that have experienced significant problems owing to flooding? Will he agree to such mechanisms being used in a similar way in the future, or does he think that, for us to achieve budgetary restraint, we have to reform the way those instruments work?
Secondly, what plans do the Government have to ensure that this annual budget and future EU budgets are controlled and that funding is prioritised on interventions to encourage jobs and growth throughout the EU and in the UK? Today’s documents raise again some of the issues that I raised in the European Union (Finance) Bill. Funding for the common agricultural policy is still high and not being diverted to more useful programmes such as the European fund for strategic investments. Other budget amendments have pushed the budgets further into the margins, which again raises my question of whether the gap between commitment and payment appropriations is manageable and whether it is the most efficient way to ensure budgetary restraint. We had quite a debate on that when discussing the Bill. What plans does the Minister have to ensure wider reform of the EU budget?
Finally, I would like to ask the Minister about the UK’s response to migratory pressures in Italy and Greece. In document 11, his follow-up letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on draft amending budget 5, responding to those migratory pressures, he outlined more details and he has said more on that today. In the letter, he said that the funding provided for in this DAB supported a range of measures to support the management of migration flows, none of which directly funded the Commission’s proposed schemes for relocation to other member states of 40,000 migrants arriving in Italy and Greece or the resettlement of 20,000 refugees from those countries. Will he confirm whether, in line with the European announcement, the project will include resettlement to other European member states? Does he agree that, contrary to the comments he made in the letter, that does appear to constitute direct funding for the relocation of some of the migrants arriving in Italy and Greece?
Labour Members in the UK Parliament and European Parliament have called for a joint approach to help cope with the increasing number of refugees. The Government have stated that they will not participate in a proposed mandatory EU programme to resettle migrants rescued when trying to cross the Mediterranean to Europe. Now that European leaders have voted against a quota system for relocation, something with which the Government did not agree, are there plans to engage further in the European effort to solve the migrant crisis? What future financial support are the Government willing to mobilise to help the UK and other EU countries deal with those migratory pressures, which are the consequence of unrest in the middle east?
Mr Gauke
May I put it on record that I am grateful to see the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South in her place? I hope we can continue to debate this and other matters in future. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Scunthorpe in his place, and I hope we will continue to debate Treasury matters.
First, in terms of our position on the EU solidarity fund, the Government support the objectives and principles of the fund in providing assistance to member states affected by serious natural disasters. However, the Government also take the view that the Commission should always look first to reallocate funds from within existing agreed budgets to meet in-year pressures, rather than coming to member states to request additional money. Past examples show that the Commission is able to find reallocations—for example, when programmes are delayed or take-up is slower than expected.
In terms of the budget more widely and the need to prioritise areas relating to jobs and growth, the Government’s record is clear. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the best way to put pressure on inefficient spending is to cap the overall expenditure. The deal negotiated by the Prime Minister in February 2013 was the first real-terms reduction in the EU budget, and such budgetary restraint is very important. As the Prime Minister said at the time, EU spending reform is a long-term project, but the deal that he secured represents important progress, including on common agricultural policy expenditure. While spending on CAP was cut by 13%, spending on areas of pro-growth expenditure increased and now accounts for 13% rather than 9% of the overall budget.
It is also worth mentioning wider budgetary reform. The UK welcomes the objectives of Vice-President Georgieva’s “budget for results” initiative, which aims to develop a more performance-orientated budget that delivers tangible results for EU citizens. We are working closely with the Commission on that and see it as an important opportunity to help improve the value and efficiency of EU spending and to increase transparency about it for taxpayers. The Chancellor made our position clear at ECOFIN earlier in the year. We have held discussions with the Commission and offered technical assistance, and we are keen to drive this agenda forward.
On migration funding and our response to the crisis, the UK is of the view that a great impact can be made in conflict regions, which is why we are the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian relief effort. We will continue with our significant efforts to ease the burden on front-line member states by providing practical, on-the-ground support. In line with the Prime Minister’s announcements, we will also take forward plans to resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees over the course of this Parliament.
With regard to funding of Frontex, to which we contribute not via the EU budget but through a separate bilateral contribution, we will match increased EU funding as proposed under draft amended budget 5. I hope those points are helpful to the Committee, and I will be happy to answer any further questions.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I say, Mr Walker, what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first occasion in this Parliament? I did so many times in the previous Parliament when you were chairing, with great élan, the Procedure Committee.
To begin with, what are the Minister’s expectations for our rebate? It has gone up this year, which is good news, but last year we obviously had the problem of suddenly discovering that we owed the EU a great deal more money. Does he think that that will be a recurring problem or will the good news on the rebate be the more important part?
Mr Gauke
In terms of the rebate and the surcharge, which, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, emerged last year, the first point is that he is right that the rebate has increased. The effect of that is that the net additional contribution, as a consequence of revisions to our gross national income, has fallen by something in the region of €100 million. It is worth saying that the draft amending budget before us confirms this; that is an important point. On the wider question of whether we are likely to see any repeat of what happened last year, it is worth remembering the negotiation achievements that were reached last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ensuring that no country is bounced into having an additional liability in the way that occurred last time.
When it comes to the revisions of GNI that have an impact on the calculation of contributions of member states, as far as the UK—or, indeed, any member state—is concerned, until all revisions have been done by all member states, it is not possible to make an assessment of precisely what additional sum is likely to be made.
Finally on this topic, let me make it perfectly clear that under this Government the UK rebate is safe. The rebate will continue to be calculated on an unchanged basis. There was no change to the formula and no change to the types of EU expenditure that we get a rebate on. The UK abatement remains fully justified due to continuing expenditure distortions in the EU budget; it is simply a matter of fairness. In terms of the surcharge issue, which is a separate but related one, we cannot yet say whether the UK will make a payment or receive a repayment from the EU later in the year until all calculations have been completed.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Minister said that the external aid budget will go up by 22%. Do our contributions to it that go through the European Union but are not co-funding operations with the European Union count towards our 0.7% target for overseas aid?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do have another question, and the Minister might get inspiration.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Very often in these European debates on the budget, we look at the smaller issues, but subheadings 1 and 2—economic, social and territorial cohesion, and sustainable growth and natural resources—cover about €111 billion of expenditure. Those terms seem to be vague and woolly. Will the Minister give us some more guidance as to where the money really goes? What is economic, social and territorial cohesion, other than building a fence in Hungary? What is sustainable growth and natural resources? I do not think that we are not doing a lot of mining in the European Union.
Mr Gauke
On my hon. Friend’s previous question, I can confirm that the contribution to the EU budget that is spent on overseas aid is included in our 0.7% official development assistance target. I am pleased to be able to provide that clarification.
My hon. Friend makes a wider point about the vagueness of the definitions, but that is perhaps not unique to the European Union. Whether descriptions relate to UK expenditure or various UN conventions and expenditure, they are not always as clear as they might be. There have been issues in trying to explain to the general public how we spend money within the UK, and such terms can be a little vague. I support my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for greater transparency in this area. The Government introduced UK taxpayers to tax summaries setting out where expenditure goes so that they can be better informed about how public money is spent.
On the EU budget headings, my hon. Friend referred to sustainable growth. This includes common agricultural policy pillar two spending, which focuses on rural development that is environmentally sustainable. That is part of heading 2 spend. The EU budget spend contributes to financing through various programmes. For example, Horizon 2020, which I touched on earlier, is perhaps one of the less controversial areas of EU expenditure, as are cohesion funds for sustainable development within the EU.
I hope that I have provided some information for my hon. Friend about the relevant headings, but if he would like more, I am happy to set that out.
The Chair
Mr Rees-Mogg, are you content? If no more Members have questions, we will proceed to the debate on the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of the European Union Documents No. 9404/15, Draft Decision on mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund to provide for payment of advances in the 2016 Budget; No. SEC(15) 240, Statement of Estimates of the Commission for 2016 (Preparation of the 2016 Budget): Political Presentation; No. SEC(15) 240 Statement of Estimates of the Commission for 2016 (Preparation of the 2016 Budget): Financial programming 2017-2020 (Provisional figures); No. 9403/15 Draft Decision on the mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument for the provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece; No. 10343/1/15 Letter of amendment No 1 to the draft general budget 2016: Financing of the EFSI Guarantee Fund; No. COM(15)351 Draft Amending Budget No. 6 to the General Budget 2015; supports the Government's efforts to limit the size of the EU Budget, including use of the EU Solidarity Fund and Flexibility Instrument, in order to get the best deal for UK taxpayers at a time of tight constraints on domestic public spending; welcomes the fact that the 2016 Draft Budget respects the Multi-Annual Financial Framework agreement secured by the Prime Minister in 2013, which delivers an unprecedented real-terms reduction compared with the 2007-2013 period while protecting the UK rebate; notes that the 2016 Draft Budget achieves an increased payments and commitments margin compared to 2015 and that the Amending Letter No. 1 updates the 2016 Draft Budget to reflect strong political agreement on the Regulation on the European Fund for Strategic Investments which the UK supported as a mechanism to boost jobs and growth in the UK and Europe; and further notes that the Draft Amending Budget 6 concerns a routine adjustment of revenue calculations and welcomes that it provides for the payment of the rebate on the 2014 EU budget surcharge that was secured last autumn. —(Mr Gauke.)
Barbara Keeley
I thank the Minister for his answers. It was interesting that the hon. Member for North East Somerset made an appropriate point about the vagueness of definitions in an 88-page document and the various other attachments. What we are debating is probably as clear as the proverbial mud to many people outside the room, so perhaps we can add a little clarity.
I have made this point before: the Opposition believe—we must keep insisting on this—that the European Commission should try to make decisions surrounding the budget much more accessible to citizens. The material is dense and, even for a short debate such as this, it is hard to understand what is being said. The Commission should start to understand how to give more and better information about the budget and the budget process, and I am sure that the Minister, who has to plough through all these things, agrees. Transparency is a key factor, so I was glad that the hon. Member for North East Somerset talked about that.
I want to cover several more points, just for emphasis. A lot of this is uncontentious, albeit not all. As I have said, we welcome the fact that the draft budget states that its primary objective is to
“provide a new boost for jobs, growth and investment”.
We welcome the overall increase in the fund for competitiveness for growth and jobs of 11.4% for 2016 compared with 2015. However, there have been decreases in funding for large infrastructure projects and, at a much greater rate, for energy projects to aid economic recovery. We should encourage a focus on green energy and investment.
Funding for economic, social and territorial cohesion has received a small overall increase, although both the cohesion fund and the European territorial co-operation fund have decreased. That heading has been the subject of an extensive reprogramming exercise and the margin left beneath the ceiling is now very tight, with only £11 million of difference. We will continue to press the Government to ensure that significant changes to and reallocations of funding are made on the basis that they are likely to increase value for money for the UK taxpayer.
We welcome the continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget—as I have said, it will drop from 41% of EU commitments in 2014 to 35% in 2020—but the wider reform of the common agricultural policy that is needed has still not taken place. The UK Government should push for such reform in future negotiations. Deductions are being made to sustainable growth and natural resource funding, but they involve funds for which reform is less of a priority. For example, the European agricultural fund has decreased by 24.9%, whereas market-related expenditure and direct payments have decreased by only 1.4%.
We welcome the increased focus on dealing with the refugee crisis. Draft amending budget No. 5 was intended to support the EU relocation and resettlement schemes. As the Minister mentioned, the money has been used to reinforce Frontex, to provide emergency assistance after the first arrival and screening of migrants, to reinforce the regional development and protection programmes for north Africa and the horn of Africa, and to cover emergency assistance for the surveillance activities carried out in the context of Frontex operations.
In addition, €25 million was used to implement a voluntary pilot project on resettlement. To refer back to my question, a European announcement on 13 May suggest that that project would include resettlement in European member states. Labour welcomes the use of the flexibility instrument to help to alleviate the migrant crisis, but we encourage the UK Government to engage with the rest of Europe and other affected countries to find a sustainable way of funding a response to this increasingly serious situation. Frankly, we must have something more sustainable than what is in place today. It was disappointing that many Conservative and UKIP MEPs voted on 9 September against legislation calling for a unified response to the relocation of 40,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece. Labour Members and MEPs have called for a joint approach to help to cope with the increasing numbers of refugees. My colleague, Claude Moraes MEP, chair of the European Parliament’s civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said:
“We need a long-term solution, with Britain opting into a comprehensive EU plan to tackle a crisis which is likely to go on for some time and will require solidarity on refugees and measures to halt people-smuggling and the root causes.”
I believe that this is a Treasury issue as well as a Home Office one, and I hope that the UK Government engage with the EU to provide an adequate response to the crisis.
Along with our European counterparts, Labour Members fully support the letter of draft amending budget No. 1, which helps to create the budget structure necessary for the provision and creation of the European fund for strategic investments. We believe that such funding should be a priority for the EU. It will help to target areas for growth, including infrastructure in the transport, energy, digital, environment, urban and social sectors. Other areas of focus will be education and training, health, research and development, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is unfortunate that the money redirected to that fund is from funding already set aside to increase competitiveness for growth and employment. We should not be in that either/or situation. Money is being shifted from the Connecting Europe Facility to fund the European fund for strategic development. That means that money to improve cross-border rail and operability, sustainable and efficient transport, and the connectivity of transport modes has been more than halved. However, there is a new budget allowance for encouraging private investment for transport infrastructure projects. The Minister mentioned the redeployment of funds from Horizon 2020.
I want to leave the Minister with a question, although I do not know whether he will have time to answer it today. Have the Government made any assessment of whether the shifting of the funds will provide better value for the UK taxpayer? I understand that the measure uses unallocated margins, but that goes to the question of the manageability of the gap between authorised commitments and authorised payments. I spoke about that a great deal in our debates on the European Union (Finance) Act 2015, so I will not rehearse the arguments again today.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My initial point is that we should always remember that when the EU budget talks about “own resources”, it means our money, which was the point that Margaret Thatcher made so forcefully all those years ago to get our money back. The EU does not, in fact, have any of its own resources. It has money that it squeezes out of the British taxpayer, and it gives us a little bit back in return, but it does not have its own resources.
I am concerned about the size of the budget that is spent on things about which we know very little, except the common agricultural policy, which I fear is used to subsidise inefficient continental farmers and damages the interests of our farmers, because it is biased in favour of small, inefficient farming units whereas so many of our farmers have consolidated. That is a particular problem when dairy prices are so low because our farms, have become much more efficient, in many cases quite painfully.
My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, and I have large rural constituencies with a lot of dairy farmers who suffer because the CAP is focused away from British farmers to less efficient farmers—and we pay for it. That seems to be the worst of all possible worlds. It will, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said, go down to representing 35% of the EU budget, but that is still an enormous amount to be paying in agricultural subsidies. If we look at the experience of New Zealand and how competitive it has become after weaning itself off subsidies, the lesson is quite clear. We want efficient, larger farming units that are able to compete globally, not to have the principles of the 1960s applying to farming.
It is also difficult to know where the money is going, which was why I asked the Minister about the €110-odd billion in the main parts of the budget. We often argue about the rise in administrative expenses. They are important, but they are 6% of the budget, and that 6% of the budget ought to be reduced. An administrative cost of 6% is pretty high in the context of other Administrations but if we save money there, we are talking about hundreds of millions, whereas if we save money in the major part of what the EU is doing, we can talk about saving billions. It really is a question of going through this line by line and seeing whether the money is being spent reasonably.
Perhaps Parliament does not take the whole issue of European spending seriously enough because we hand the money over and that is it, whereas we spend four days debating the UK Budget, as well as the autumn statement and so on. However, we are having a two-hour debate with not many participants on a quiet Monday afternoon in which we are discussing the very large European budget, the inefficiencies that go with that, and the aspects of the spending that may not be in the British national interest.
I am fully supportive of what the Government have done on the MFF—it was an absolute triumph. I did not think that it would be possible to get the European budget cut. It worries me that outside the MFF, the process is subject to qualified majority voting, so our ability to limit things is seriously curtailed and, as the Minister suggested, we have to find allies in like-minded countries that do not want spending to go up. The question is whether the use of this money is wasteful and in the British national interest. The reminder is, as always, that this is our money—our taxpayers’ money.
Mr Gauke
May I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for their contributions? I thank other Members for attending today’s proceedings and, indeed, members of the European Scrutiny Committee for selecting the documents for debate.
EU budget negotiations are a challenging process, but I am pleased to say that the initial Commission proposal was more reasonable than in previous years, as I pointed out earlier. That shows the effect that the Prime Minister’s deal is having in bearing down on spending. The Government, working closely with our like-minded allies, have been successful in achieving further savings by cutting the Commission proposal by approximately €1.4 billion in payments and €0.6 billion in commitments, meaning that both commitments and payments are €2.6 billion below the annual MFF ceilings.
As I turn to the issues raised in the debate, I must note that there has been a degree of cross-party unity, which is an attribute that we might not often see in the next few months. I agree with the essence of the point about the transparency of spending that was raised by the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend. It is worth pointing out that Vice-President Georgieva’s budget for results initiative aims to increase budget transparency to EU citizens and, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, we are keen to support her in that process. The widespread use of open data to provide more information to the public can help that, but for public spending in general, and spending by EU institutions in particular, the case for greater transparency is strong indeed.
We reduced CAP spend in the previous MFF. CAP reform is a long-term project and we continue to work with allies to achieve maximum value for money. It is worth pointing out that there has been modest redistribution of direct payments in recent years. Generally, the pattern of direct payment receipts by member states is a function of patterns of production, in particular in the production of commodities for which compensation rates are highest. We continue to argue for CAP reform and we have succeeded in reducing CAP spend by 13% in this MFF.
We agree that it is disappointing that administrative costs remain high. My hon. Friend was right to say that those costs are 6%, which are higher than they should be. We continue to hold the institutions to their commitment to reduce staff headcount by 5% a year.
The hon. Lady touched on the EFSI, which we voted in favour of because we judged that it was an effective way to leverage private financing for growth, including infrastructure. Those funds will be allocated through a competitive process. Funding needed to be found within the limits of the MFF and, in such circumstances, that is a reasonable approach.
On migration, the UK will not participate in relocation because we believe that it fails to address the cause of the problems—it will act as a pull factor to the EU and simply move the problem around Europe. A greater impact can be made in conflict regions, which is why we are the second largest bilateral donor to the Syrian relief effort. We will continue our significant efforts to ease the burden on front-line member states by providing practical, on-the-ground support. In the past three years, the UK has contributed more resource to support missions run by the European Asylum Support Office than any other member state, with more than 1,000 expert working days contributed in deployments to Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Cyprus.
The Government will continue to champion the need for an efficient EU budget that provides good value for the UK taxpayer and firmly press to ensure fiscal discipline by limiting the budget size to deliver the Prime Minister’s MFF deal. In doing so, we will work with like-minded allies to deliver the best EU budget deal possible within the negotiation’s parameters. We continue to take difficult decisions to deal with deficits domestically, and such budget discipline is also needed at an EU level. We will, of course, keep members of the Committee updated as appropriate and I welcome their continued interest in this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
NHS (Contracts and Conditions)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
A digital debate took place on Twitter, ahead of today’s debate. Mr Speaker has agreed that for this debate members of the public can use handheld electronic devices in the Public Gallery, provided that they are silent. Photos, however, must not be taken.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to contracts and conditions in the NHS.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and, in particular, to be debating the first petition to reach the debate stage under the new system for dealing with e-petitions. The original petition on the joint Government and Parliament website called for a vote of no confidence in the Secretary of State for Health. Fortunately for him—or unfortunately, depending on how people want to look at it—the Petitions Committee does not have the power to initiate a vote of no confidence, and so we decided that the debate should be on the issue underlying the petition, which was the contracts and conditions of NHS staff.
I might be joking about motions of no confidence in the Secretary of State, but the morale of NHS staff is not a joke. It is a long time since I last saw dedicated doctors, nurses and ancillary staff so demoralised and, sometimes, despairing. If we look at the current state of the NHS we can see why. A&E departments are in crisis and missed waiting time targets for the whole of last winter. GP services are struggling to cope, and patients find it harder and harder to get appointments. Last year, the deficit across trusts was nearly £1 billion; this year, that is predicted to double.
Yet despite all that, NHS staff work miracles every day. Who could not be proud of some of the achievements of our surgeons? Who could sit in an A&E department, as I unfortunately had to during the election, seeing the endless patience of NHS staff, and not be grateful to them? Who could watch paramedics dealing with an accident or reassuring a frail and confused elderly patient and not be ever grateful for the NHS? After the Olympic opening ceremony, I remember one American reporter said, “Oh, it’s just like praising UnitedHealthcare.” No, it is not. The NHS is not like UnitedHealthcare, thankfully, and that is why we value it.
NHS staff have been badly treated by this Government. Since 2010 pay increases have been deliberately kept low and last year we saw some staff being told that they could not have even a 1% increase if they were due to get an increment as well. The Government often talk about public services as if they were a drain on the economy, but they are not. Services such as the NHS are a huge contributor to our economy. It is completely wrong that, under this Government, tax is cut for millionaires but dedicated NHS staff are not even entitled to a decent pay rise.
Indeed, in the previous Parliament the NHS was told to make £20 billion of what the Government call efficiency savings but the rest of us call cuts. That is due to rise to £30 billion by the end of this Parliament. The NHS is struggling to cope with fewer and fewer resources but more and more patients. Many of the difficulties being encountered are of the Government’s own making. Ministers criticise spending on agency staff, but the Government’s first act on coming into office in 2010 was to cut nurse training places by over 3,000 a year.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I of course recognise the great work that NHS staff do, not least in Dorset, but is the official policy of the official Opposition now to lift pay restraint in the NHS?
Helen Jones
We made our policy quite clear in the last Parliament. In particular, we opposed the Government’s decision to curb 1% pay increases for NHS staff who were gaining increments. The hon. Gentleman really has to think about this: if there are fewer and fewer nurses in our hospitals—in particular, employment in the most senior grades is down by 3%—and we are spending millions on agency staff, something is going badly wrong. Hospitals are being forced to recruit nurses from abroad or spend on agency staff when we have thousands of people in this country who want to train as nurses but simply cannot get the training places that are available.
Helen Jones
In a moment. I want to make a little progress and finish this point.
That is a false economy. I make no criticism of the skills of the nurses we recruit from abroad, but it—
Helen Jones
In a moment. The hon. Lady will have to curb her impatience for a little while.
I make no criticism at all of those nurses’ skills, but it is much better to be employing people here in this country. The only people benefiting from the current situation are the companies that supply agency staff. Indeed, one, Independent Clinical Services, saw its profits more than double, from £6.2 million in 2010 to £16.5 million in 2013. In other words, what the Government have done is a textbook example of a false economy.
Helen Whately
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that between May 2010 and May 2015 the number of qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff increased by 2.1%, at 6,622 additional staff?
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading that out, but I referred to nurses in hospitals. The number of nurses working in hospitals has fallen under this Government, particularly in the top grades. The failure to train and recruit enough permanent staff is putting a great strain on those staff already in post, who are having to deal with agency staff all the time to make sure that they know how things work in a particular hospital or ward. That does not offer continuity of care for patients.
Maria Caulfield
I declare an interest as a former NHS nurse—in fact, I still work as a nurse. I do not want to be political about this, because I want progress to be made on supporting the NHS, and particularly staff, but one of the single biggest factors in demoralising nurses and leading many skilled nurses to leave the practice was the last Labour Government’s change to the skill mix. That was crucial, because we were forced to cut our budgets, particularly on the wards, and junior nurses were left in charge of wards, instead of experienced senior staff nurses and sisters—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions should be brief.
Maria Caulfield
Can I just say that it is the change to the skill mix that has demoralised nurses, and that did not happen under this Government?
Helen Jones
I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady. What has demoralised most of the nurses I see is the cuts they have to cope with day in, day out, as well as the shortage of sometimes even basic equipment and the—
Helen Jones
In a moment. I need to make a little progress, because other people want to speak.
There is also the fact that this Government, rather than valuing NHS staff, consistently appear to undervalue them. The Government are now introducing further ideas. They want seven-day working in the NHS. I will come in a moment to what that means for hospitals, but let me look first at what is happening with general practitioners. In principle, everyone agrees that more out-of-hours care is a good idea—not least NHS staff themselves. The question is how the Government will fund and staff the extra working hours. Currently, we are increasingly short of GPs. In Warrington—on the Government’s own figures, before the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) jumps up to read out her brief again—we have fewer GPs than we had—
Helen Jones
No. I need to make a little progress, because other people want to speak.
In Warrington, we have fewer GPs than we had in 2010—those are the Government’s own figures, not mine. Nationally, the number of unfilled GP posts quadrupled in the three years from 2010 to 2013. The Royal College of General Practitioners says there are severe shortages in some parts of the country and that in some areas—it quotes Kent, Yorkshire and the east midlands—we need at least 50% more GPs over the next five years just to cope with population increases. Now, when there are not enough GPs to ensure timely access to appointments on weekdays, it is difficult to see how the Government are going to extend GPs’ working hours without recruiting more staff.
Of course, the cost is also an issue. It is estimated that the costs of extending services beyond the current contract, with one in four surgeries opening late in the evening and at weekends, would be £749 million. That would rise to £1.2 billion if one in two practices were open longer. That is far in excess of the money currently in the GP challenge fund. If the Government intend to proceed without recruiting more staff, that will simply increase the pressures on the staff working already, leading to more burn-out, and it will be a downward spiral. We already know that many GPs are thinking of retiring early.
The Secretary of State has now turned his attention to not only GPs, but hospital doctors and consultants, who he says do not work weekends. Well, I have two consultants in my family, and that is news to me, because they certainly do work weekends. In fact, the Secretary of State so provoked hospital doctors that they took to Twitter under the #iminworkJeremy, posting pictures of themselves working at weekends, often after a 70-hour, five-day week.
Now, I reiterate that everybody accepts that out-of-hours care has to improve, but the Secretary of State needs to achieve that through consultation and by showing respect for the staff we already have. At the moment, he is guilty of muddled thinking; he has deliberately confused emergency care with elective care. Specialists in emergency care do work weekends; in fact, very few consultants opt out altogether—the figure is about 0.3%. Yet, the Government tell us that there are 6,000 extra deaths among people admitted at weekends. The Minister needs to publish the research on that and to go further, because correlation and causation are not the same thing.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
May I recommend that the hon. Lady read last week’s edition of the British Medical Journal, where the issue is set out very well by Professor Freemantle?
Helen Jones
Yes. I thank the hon. Lady for that useful suggestion. I will do so.
People who are admitted to hospitals at the weekend are much sicker than those admitted on weekdays, because we do not have elective admissions at the weekend.
Maria Caulfield
Does the hon. Lady have any suggestion as to why people are sicker at the weekend? Is it perhaps because they have been unable to get hold of their GP in the evenings or on previous weekends?
Helen Jones
I have just said the Government should publish their research and delve deeper into the figures. [Interruption.] Look, the hon. Lady knows that people admitted at weekend are, overwhelmingly, emergencies. That is the point. Their death rates cannot be compared with death rates on weekdays, when there is elective surgery—that is a basic point, which she needs to grasp.
If the Government really believe these things are happening, they need to find out why. As I understand it, death rates are taken over 30 days, so someone can be admitted on a Sunday and die 28 days later, on a Thursday. The Government need to prove cause and effect before they can make the link between admissions at the weekend and death rates. So far, however, we have not seen that from them.
Helen Jones
No, I need to make some progress.
What, exactly, is the Secretary of State trying to do? If he is trying to bring about a seven-day fully elective service, he needs to say so. As far as I am aware, no major health system in the world has managed to do that. If he is not trying to do that, he needs to tell us clearly—perhaps the Minister will do so when he winds up—which services he thinks should operate at the weekend.
The Secretary of State also needs to recognise that, to have the service he proposes, he needs not only more doctors, consultants and nurses on the wards, but back-up staff. Doctors operate by leading teams. If they do not have the ancillary staff—the people to do the MRI scans, the radiology and the lab tests—they cannot operate properly. We need to hear how the Secretary of State will implement his proposals. Will he recruit more staff, or will he worsen the terms and conditions of staff who are already not well paid, to introduce weekend working?
It might help to improve morale in the NHS if the Secretary of State refrained from attacking staff for not working at weekends, when they do, and actually negotiated with them sensibly. Staff know what is happening at the frontline, and they can best suggest the changes that need to be made.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We are discussing contracts and conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that whistleblowing is another issue over which there tends to be silence? The last time there was a full debate on it in this place was 2009. It came up tangentially in 2013, in a debate on accountability and transparency, and it has appeared in statements—I think there was one last July and one earlier this year—but is it not time that we had a full and proper debate?
Helen Jones
Whistleblowing in the NHS, as in other areas, is an important issue. It is important to protect staff who blow the whistle to protect their patients, which is their duty. Perhaps my hon. Friend will initiate a debate on that; I am sure we would welcome that.
When the Secretary of State talks about NHS staff and doctors, let us remember that the starting salary for a junior hospital doctor is £22,636. It is not a huge amount when someone has spent years in medical school and works many hours, and often has to deal with seriously ill patients. However, the Secretary of State proposes to change their contracts to take away the extra payments for weekend working, which will effectively mean a huge pay cut. The Scottish Executive will not do that, and that will lead to the ridiculous situation in which two doctors doing exactly the same jobs in different hospitals either side of the border will be on two rates of pay.
As for consultants, I have heard complaints from the Government that Labour raised their pay rates. Yes, we did, and I am proud that we did. I will give the Minister the reason, which was set out very clearly by Frank Dobson, who was formerly my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. In the City there are people who probably messed about for most of their time at school and played noughts and crosses at the back of the class, and who can make millions. Across the road there will be someone who was probably the cleverest kid in their class and has worked for years in training—often someone who is at the cutting edge of medical development. Yes, those people deserve a decent rate of pay for their skills, training and responsibility.
The Government also forget that consultants’ time is allocated in two blocks: direct clinical care and supporting professional activities. Those two together make up the 40-hour week. SPA time is for such things as mentoring, quality improvement and teaching. Some consultants go on to do more teaching and research, perhaps, but they are doing extra work on top of the 40-hour week, which increases their pay. Consultants’ basic pay ranges from £70,249 to £101,451, so the Secretary of State needs to explain how he can tell us that consultants are paid £118,000 a year. How does he calculate that figure, and what is included in it?
If the Government really want more consultant time on the ward, they could look at some of the things that do not need to be done by doctors, but which doctors currently do because of lack of back-up staff. The Government always talk as if non-clinical staff in hospitals are somehow superfluous and an extravagance. That is not correct. Without the right staff, doctors and nurses are forced to take time from clinical care to do some of their jobs. For example, many doctors whom I have spoken to now collect their own data for audit and input it themselves. That is a job that a competent clerk should be doing—not a consultant. I found one hospital where there is one secretary to a group of 25 consultants. Writing letters takes consultants away from clinical care.
I found one place where the IT equipment is so old that it takes six minutes to boot up, and often collapses, with the loss of the data. If the Government really want more doctor time on the wards they should consider those issues as well, and think about the other staff. As an example, if an operating theatre does not have a full complement of staff, there is no one to send out with the patient who is in recovery, and a doctor must go with them. That slows the turnaround time for theatres, and staff are told that their turnaround time is not good enough.
I say again that it takes a team of people to run the NHS, not just doctors. Let us also remember that the NHS depends on many staff who earn very low salaries. As doctors would be the first to say, those people are an essential part of the team. The NHS Pay Review Body could see a case for some adjustments to unsocial hours pay—and I have not met any staff who do not see a case for that; but it noted that both the Department of Health and NHS employers said that the cost of unsocial hours premiums makes the delivery of seven-day services prohibitive. The Minister must tell us whether the Government will try to deliver seven-day services by cutting the pay of staff again. The review body said that that could risk the morale and motivation of staff.
Recently we have had a few soundbites from the Government, but no clear mechanism showing how they will set out to do what they say they will do. They have pledged an £8 billion increase in NHS funding by 2020. Even taking them at their word—and some of us are rather sceptical—that is the bare minimum to keep existing services going. [Interruption.] If the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), will stop chuntering from behind the Minister, I will wind up my remarks. [Interruption.] PPSs, as I told someone once before, are meant to be seen, not heard.
The Minister needs to make it clear what services the Government will run and what staffing arrangements they will put in place. They can put more doctors on the ward, but that will be useless without the back-up staff. It is not surprising that one surgeon in the #iminworkJeremy campaign posted a picture of himself mopping out his operating theatre at the end of the day. That was very good of him, but is it the best use of a consultant surgeon’s time? Above all, the Secretary of State and his Ministers need to stop attacking the people who work in the NHS, and to try to work with them in a climate of mutual respect. It is not hospital doctors, GPs, nurses, lab technicians or cleaners who have caused staff shortages in the NHS; it is the Government. Those staff members did not introduce the disastrous Health and Social Care Act 2012. They are not the people requiring huge cuts in our hospitals and other services. Unless the Government are prepared to recruit more nurses, doctors and ancillary staff, more and more pressure will be put on existing staff, who will suffer burnout. It will be a downward spiral.
When I worked in teaching, a wise old head teacher said to me, “People say that the first thing you have to do in a school is ensure that the children are happy; but no—the first thing you should do is ensure the staff are happy. If the staff are happy the children will be well taught.” That is something that can be applied in many areas. I tell the Minister honestly that he needs to take note of the anger among staff that generated the petition, take it on board, stop denigrating them, and deal with them properly and sensibly, to achieve what the Government have set out to achieve.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, particularly as recently you were a fellow member of the Select Committee on Health. For the record, I am married to a full-time NHS forensic psychiatrist, although one might say that I do not have a dog in this fight, because he already works weekends.
It may help the House if I comment quickly on the background. I thank Professor Freemantle and his team for their excellent updating of the data following the last analysis of data in 2009-10. He and his colleagues carried out the exercise again based on data from 2013-14, and it may help if I put some of that in context. What he shows is that 1.8% of NHS patients will die within 30 days of admission. It is important that we look not only at the data relating to what happens within a few days, which he has also analysed, but at the longer-term data. He shows a very real effect: if someone is admitted to hospital on a Friday, there is a 2% increase in the risk that they will die within 30 days; if they are admitted on a Saturday, the increase is 10%; if they are admitted on a Sunday, the increase is 15%; and if they are admitted on a Monday, the increase is 5%. Those are relative, not absolute, statistics and are on a background rate of 1.8%, so it is important that we do not alarm people unduly with those data. However, they mean, very importantly, that around 11,000 more people die if they are admitted between a Friday and a Monday, relative to what we would expect had they been admitted on a Wednesday.
That is extremely important, and the Secretary of State is absolutely right to take that very seriously, but we need to look at it in its wider context. Is it simply because a different group of people are being admitted in the middle of the week than are being admitted at weekends? Is it because they are a sicker group of people? Both of those are true, which is why it was important that Professor Freemantle made adjustments for those kinds of data. He showed that even if we take account of the fact that there are genuinely sicker people coming into our hospitals at the weekend, the effect was still present, but it was reduced. There was a 7% increase on a Saturday and a 10% increase on a Sunday, so it was still important. As for people admitted to hospital for routine procedures, it was shown that the nearer it gets to the weekend, the more their chances of mortality increase.
To go back to my earlier point, the Secretary of State is absolutely right to take this issue seriously. This is not just an effect in Britain; it is observed internationally, but it matters. Yes, those people are sicker, and yes, a different group of people is coming in, but there is also the issue of what we should do about it. We must not give the impression that all those 11,000 deaths are preventable. We have to be very careful not to rush into action that leads to a levelling down, rather than a levelling up. We want to bring the data up as far as we can, but when hospitals have done a deep analysis of the deaths that have occurred within 30 days of people being admitted at weekends, it is sometimes very difficult to say what could have happened differently.
We need to look at this issue, but it is not just about consultant presence. Senior supervision at weekends is undoubtedly part of it and is very important, but other issues are at stake. Is there access to diagnostic tests? We need to look beyond this being just about consultants; it is about nursing staff, too. We have to be careful not to shift resources into trying to sort out one part of the issue—consultant presence—because if that means a continuation of a worrying trend of shifting resources out of primary care, we could inadvertently end up with a sicker group of people coming into hospitals at weekends. In other words, we have to be very careful about the balance and potential unintended consequences of what we do.
Undoubtedly, at the root of all this—this issue would face whoever was sitting behind the Secretary of State’s desk—are the issues of financing and resources for the NHS. I hope, as we come closer to the spending announcements, that as much as possible of the £8 billion announced will be front-loaded, so that some of these issues can be addressed. Resourcing and how we spread it across the wider NHS lies at the heart of this question, and it is important that we do not focus entirely on hospitals.
I want to talk more widely about the seven-day NHS. I hope that the Secretary of State will look carefully at what that is for. Is it about trying to reduce that excess weekend mortality? Yes, it should be about that. Should it be about reducing avoidable, unnecessary admissions to hospital? Absolutely. We know that people do not want to be in hospital. It is a dangerous place for someone to be if they do not need to be there, particularly if they are frail and elderly and would be better looked after in the community, so yes—let us reduce avoidable admissions.
Should the seven-day NHS be about accessing the kind of specialist advice that makes a real difference to people’s lives? I am very conscious that this House debated on Friday whether people should have the right to medical assistance in ending their life. It was a controversial debate. I think the House made the right decision, but there was absolute consensus within that debate about the need for greater access to specialist palliative care advice. I would include that kind of thing in a seven-day NHS, because people’s quality of life at the end of their life has an extraordinary impact not only on them, but on their whole family. Seven-day services should be about addressing quality, and I would love the Minister to comment further on how we can bring about sustainable funding for specialist palliative care. That is absolutely part of what we should be doing on seven-day services.
However, there is another aspect, which is more difficult. When resources are very restricted, should we prioritise access to primary care out of hours for people who would prefer to be seen at the weekend than mid-week? I am sure we all understand that—in our busy lives, it is sometimes difficult to take time off work—but it might not be the priority when resources are tight. I speak as someone who, before I came to this House, was a clinician in rural Dartmoor in a two whole-time-equivalent practice. It was a very rural setting, and if we were to try to provide an 8-till-8 service on Saturdays and Sundays for routine GP appointments—if we were, as this is sometimes presented to the public, to enable people to see their doctor at any time—the cost would be enormous. There are extra costs involved in manning surgeries at those times, and there are also issues to do with staff availability.
I visited several practices in my area over the summer recess, and I see there genuine concern about not only the GP workforce, but the wider primary and community care workforce. We have to be very careful. If we prioritise issues such as making it possible to have a routine appointment from 8 till 8 on Saturdays and Sundays—much as I can see merit in that—it will take resources away from the other things on that list of four. We should focus on other priorities on this stage and be clear that there are other risks, such as undermining other out-of-hours services.
I would like the Secretary of State to be very clear about what he means by a seven-day NHS when it comes to primary care, and about how we will make those fair funding decisions and divide the cake, so that we get the very best for people. We absolutely have to address the excess mortality, but we have to look at the reasons behind the data to be realistic about what we can achieve. We have to make sure that we bring the quality up and that we do not inadvertently end up bringing it down by having sicker people coming into hospital, which is one of the drivers of the data that we are trying to address.
Many Members want to speak, and I, along with colleagues, have the opportunity to question the Secretary of State at the Health Committee tomorrow, so I will draw my remarks to an end. However, I hope that those points can be addressed.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I will speak briefly, because unfortunately I cannot stay until the end of the debate. First, I thank those who signed the petition. It is a genuine vox pop, not something that any party brought to the House. A large number of people signed the petition because there was genuinely an explosion of anger. It is absolutely right that we listen to those voices and ensure that they are heard in the House, and that this debate should take place. It is the first debate of its kind—the first debate from the Petitions Committee. There is another one in a fortnight’s time, on a subject that terrifies MPs. We hide our heads under the pillow to avoid talking about it, but the public are very happy to talk about it in great numbers. That subject is the idea of legalising cannabis so that people here can enjoy the benefits enjoyed in many other countries that do not have a neurotic policy that is self-defeating and actually increases cannabis harm. But that is the second debate, which is coming up. This is a great innovation by the House.
The two previous speakers in this debate made very illuminating speeches. I agree with almost every word that has been said. Of course, we genuflect before the expertise and good sense of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). She is someone else who has come to the House as a candidate elected not so much by a party as by a popular vote. Let us hope that politics is changing.
The issue that I worry about greatly is how we behave as political parties. We seem to be indifferent to, or unconscious of, the effect of our words. The use of soundbites, scares and fearmongering is extremely damaging, and it happens so often with the health service. The Daily Mail, about a year ago, had three page 1 headlines all about the health service in Wales. There was no way in which news values, or the problems that arose, which were hugely exaggerated, justified those headlines, but they were there for a political purpose: to denigrate the health service in Wales, under Labour, and to boost the chances of the Conservative party getting votes in the election.
I believe that there is an element of that in this case. Many speeches by the Secretary of State contain valuable, intelligent thoughts about how to improve the health service. If there is some statistical blip that shows there is a problem somewhere—something that is unexpected— of course it should be followed up, but not by an hysterical headline that has one effect, which is to add greatly to the anxiety of patients who are about to go into hospital. As the hon. Lady said, that is a terrifying experience, and people suffer greatly from anxiety beforehand. If they are told that there is a 16% greater chance of dying at the weekend, that anxiety and fear is greatly multiplied.
The Government should not be out to win favour and get votes in—to win popularity—by the sensationalist way in which they introduce this subject. It has rebounded on them with this petition and the reaction from those involved. It is right that we in this House should be aware of what is written in tweets and blogs. The reaction was there, and it is right that this should be brought to the House. One doctor put his payslip online. Karan Kapoor posted a letter alongside the payslip on Facebook, and it has now received hundreds of comments of support and thousands of shares on the social network. He wrote:
“My on calls per month add approximately 120 hours of work in addition to my normal working week. This is made up of being on call one day per week and one weekend in 5—5pm on Friday to 8am on Monday. Simple maths says that works out as £2.61 per hour—significantly less than the minimum wage let alone the living wage.”
The evidence was there—and came out in great abundance—of anger at what the Secretary of State was saying, and the misguided and inaccurate picture that he was giving of life in the health service at weekends.
Another tabloid story suggested that we MPs get privileged treatment when we go to hospital. I was rather astonished by that, so I searched the story to find out which hospital gives us privileged treatment, and I discovered that it is St Thomas’s. Well, the only hospital that I have ever been in during the 80 years of my life is St Thomas’s, and I went there as an MP and there was certainly no privileged treatment. I was, quite rightly, treated the same as anyone else. I was stuck in a cubicle and waited there for hours and then stayed overnight in a ward, and rightly so. But the press will believe only negative stories about MPs. That goes on.
I would like to ask the Minister this. A long time ago there was, I recall, another gimmick that a Health Secretary used: he force-fed a beefburger to his young child, when we were all terrified of catching Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from eating beef. That seemed a very unwise thing to do. It is not new for people to use fearmongering and gimmicks to advance political causes. The one question is a simple one. If we are to increase the services at weekends, where will the staff come from? Are we suddenly going to magic up special weekend surgeons? If we improve the service at weekends, we have to reduce the service in the week. Perhaps the Minister can explain that to us.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the fact that in this House we are talking about the NHS workforce, because that is one of my greatest concerns for the future of the NHS. In my role on the Health Committee, tomorrow and on other days I will be asking questions about the future of the workforce.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has just made a very important point: what is said in the House really matters; words matter. I want to talk briefly on the subject of confidence. What really matters for the NHS is patient confidence and public confidence in the NHS. I note that last year, public confidence in the NHS in England went up by 5%, and that is at a time when the NHS is more transparent than ever before about the standard of care. It is being incredibly open about things going wrong as well as things going right, so the public know that problems are no longer being swept under the carpet. In fact, that may be one reason why public confidence has gone up: problems are being investigated and sorted out.
I have to say that I was quite staggered that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) questioned the mortality figures so much and was questioning the value and importance of seven-day working. As we have heard and as the BMJ—
Helen Jones
What I said, if the hon. Lady was listening, was that the Government have to dig behind those figures and find out the reason for them. Correlation is not causation. That is a very basic principle when we are looking at things such as that, and I would be grateful if she did not attribute to me words that I have not said.
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady is correct to distinguish clearly between correlation and causation, but I did feel that the tone of her remarks seemed to question the evidence of increased mortality over weekends and out of hours. I will say that I agree with her on the need for increased investment in IT to enable the clinical workforce to spend more time on clinical work. I agree with her on that point.
I have observed over recent years that the Secretary of State has championed the NHS. He has fought for its budget to be protected at a time when many other budgets have been cut. He has secured the Chancellor’s commitment to an extra £8 billion of annual funding by 2020, and he has truly focused on patients and clinical quality over finances and structures. I wonder whether any other Secretary of State has spent as much time with his sleeves rolled up in hospitals, not just listening to the sound of bedpans but actually emptying them.
I am a supporter of the Care Quality Commission and observe that three years ago it was close to collapse, but it is now widely praised, particularly by the acute sector. I know that GPs are unhappy about the inspections, but 70% of providers say that the CQC’s inspections have given them information that has helped to improve their service. That has been supported by the Secretary of State.
Along with that focus on quality and transparency, the Secretary of State is to be applauded for trying to improve the culture of the NHS—to make it more open, supportive and connected and to ensure that NHS leaders are in touch with patients and staff.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is doing the marvellous job that the hon. Lady suggests, why did so many of the front-line staff in our NHS, who work so hard day in, day out, take to Twitter to express their lack of confidence in him?
Helen Whately
I believe that the Secretary of State has done a good job of driving the NHS in the right direction, and I know that a large proportion of the workforce have been very supportive of him.
We are all in this room because we value the NHS, but we must not be complacent. We have to recognise when it lets people down. It is intolerable that if someone has the misfortune to get ill and be admitted to hospital at the weekend, they may be more likely to die. I am not going to repeat the statistics on that, because my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) helpfully updated us, and I suspect that my figures are not as recent as hers. She made a strong case, as have others, for why the NHS needs to have proper seven-day care, which must include the support services mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington North.
The Royal College of Surgeons strongly supports seven-day care. It has said that one reason why outcomes are worse at weekends is that patients are less likely to be seen by the right mix of junior and senior staff; that such patients experience reduced access to diagnostics; and that earlier senior consultant involvement is crucial. Research from the NHS National Health Research Institute shows that 3.6 more specialists attend acutely ill patients on Wednesdays than on Sundays. More senior doctors need to be available at weekends—not just on call, as many consultants are at the moment, but present in hospitals.
The changes should not be about getting doctors to work intolerable hours, and that is not what is being proposed. As has been mentioned, only a small proportion of consultants exercise their opt-out. One could argue that the changes to the workforce, and to the consultant contract in particular, are about bringing the contract into line with what is actually happening. Looking at the terms of the workforce gives us an opportunity to ensure that there is an appropriate package for doctors in A&E, where there are large numbers of vacancies. That is the case in hospitals in and around my constituency in Kent, which is an area with a high proportion of out-of-hours work. It also gives us an opportunity to ensure that clinicians are recognised and rewarded for taking on management and leadership responsibilities. We really need clinicians to step up and take on those responsibilities. It gives us an opportunity to make sure that consultants are treated as professionals who take responsibility for their patients, their team and the whole service that they provide.
The NHS faces an incredibly tough time over the next five years. It faces rising demand for its services and rising expectations, and even with an extra £8 billion on its way, things will have to change. Senior doctors, along with senior nurses and other health professionals, will have to lead those changes. When I worked in hospitals grappling with the challenges of transformation, ideas came from everyone: junior doctors, senior doctors and patients. When it comes down to it, consultants, matrons and senior staff have to lead from the front and make things happen. They often face opposition from colleagues, so they need to be courageous and put in extra hours.
To ensure that that happens, and to get the NHS from where it is now to where we want it to be in five years’ time, there has to be a sense that we are all in it together. We cannot have a situation in which doctors blame managers and politicians, while politicians and managers point fingers at doctors. We absolutely have to move on and focus on doing what is best for patients, and what will achieve the best clinical outcomes. We have to build trust among all who are involved in healthcare and work out how we can have, and how we can afford, excellent care seven days a week, day and night. We have to support the healthcare professionals—consultants, nurses, managers and everyone else who is going to make that happen.
Dr Huq
I just wanted to ask where the hon. Lady would place management consultants in that. The NHS in north-west London has spent, I think, £13 million this year alone on Saatchi and Saatchi, and various other groups. I just wondered where she would place that in that trajectory. Hopefully, it will be something we can all agree on.
Helen Whately
I want to make the important point that we in this House need to support the NHS in doing what it needs to do to make the substantial changes that it faces over the next five years. That means supporting managers, supporting doctors and supporting nurses. Let us not try to be divisive.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Ms Vaz. It is also a pleasure to follow two fellow members of the Petitions Committee, including the Chair, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones). The Petitions Committee is a new Committee, and we are feeling our way. As hon. Members have heard, we cannot debate no-confidence motions; petitioners cannot seek a vote of no confidence in a Secretary of State or anybody else. None the less, it is important that we reflect the views and concerns of people who raise substantive matters with us, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to do so today.
Confidence and good staff morale in the NHS are important. In my constituency, morale in our local hospital, St Helier, has been comparatively low for several decades, for a number of reasons. A reorganisation has been recommended in the past couple of years, which we have successfully fought off so far. The NHS clinicians wanted to move A&E, maternity services and children’s services to St George’s in Tooting. One of the reasons why they wanted to do so was the shortage of consultants in St Helier. They wanted to concentrate consultants’ time in St George’s, which is too far away for residents.
One of the big driving factors in that, to my mind, is the fact that over 20 or so years, our local hospital has been used as a political football. People have said, “St Helier hospital is due to close. We have got only a short time, and we have to save it. We have to fight for this, because it will close some time soon.” I do not know about you, Ms Vaz, but if I were a consultant looking to work in the NHS, would I want to go and work in a hospital that is always apparently under threat of closure? No, I probably would not. I would probably go to St George’s or one of the hospitals that are being talked up. I have seen at first hand how staff morale in the NHS can be fragile. The same thing has happened nationally as well. How many times have we heard that we have 24 hours to save the NHS? We keep seeing, hearing and reading that, time after time. It is important to build confidence.
We also have a manifesto commitment to deliver. We talked in our manifesto about having a seven-day NHS, and we have been elected as a Conservative Government, so it is important that we deliver our promises. We have to work with the profession to do that, however. Why do we want a 24-hour NHS? We have heard some of the arguments about safety and patient outcomes, and at the end of the day, patient outcomes are what it is all about. There is also an argument—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) described, it is a secondary priority, because we do not want to divert too many resources—for convenience and fitting in with people’s lifestyles, which I will come back to in a moment.
The 2003 consultant contract made the seven-day move a lot more expensive to deliver, so we need to change things. Consultants, as we have heard, can refuse to work weekends, but it is quite apparent that a great many do not choose to opt out. We are not saying in a broad-brush way that every consultant opts out of such working. None the less, we need to have a degree of consistency if we are going to move towards a seven-day NHS, because we want to make sure that the healthcare in hospitals around the country is as consistent as possible. Removing the opt-out will leave a new limit of working a maximum of 13 weeks in a year—one in four weekends—which still gives plenty of opportunity for family life and for flexibility in rotas, while delivering better patient outcomes.
The changes also recognise the need for proper reward in areas such as A&E and obstetrics, with higher-performing consultants able to earn a bonus of up to £30,000 a year, and with faster pay progression for new consultants. The hon. Member for Warrington North talked about support services, which are crucial for front-line consultants, doctors and nurses. I am pleased to hear that diagnostic services will be moving in the same direction so that patients can have quicker access to information and advice about their conditions.
I have talked about convenience, and GP services cannot be boiled down to some sort of retail operation such as late-night shopping or Sunday opening. None the less, we need flexibility. The 2004 GP contract led 90% of GPs to stop providing out-of-hours care at night and at the weekend. That contract, in many cases, helped to break the personal link between patients and those responsible for their care, which has been especially hard on elderly people. Caving in to the unions at that point effectively restricted GP services to a five-day service, which created extra pressure on A&E.
I have had the misfortunate of having to use my local hospital’s A&E service four times in the past 18 months with my elderly mum and my wife. My wife stood on a six-inch spike in a park, and when she was writhing around in agony with a spike though her wellington boot, there were a lot of people in A&E who had experienced neither an accident nor an emergency. Those people did not know where to go, they chose not to go to the GP, the appropriate care was not signposted clearly enough, or the GP simply was not open. We need to address those pressures, and a seven-day service will help.
The proposal is part of our wider NHS reforms, which since 2010 have moved to bring patient decisions closer to patients. We need to provide services that patients want, rather than a Henry Ford one-size-fits-all approach—we need greater flexibility. We have largely moved away from that, so we need to continue the move towards a seven-day service and towards greater flexibility. A seven-day service fits in with people’s working practices, childcare and busy lives. There is also greater take-up of digital initiatives such as the NHS national information board, and people are being brought in to help support the greater use of technology.
Members have talked about the statistics on satisfaction with the NHS over the past few years. The Commonwealth Fund’s report in 2014—four years after the Conservative-led Government took over—showed that, according to the fund’s records, the NHS is the best-performing health service in 11 countries.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has surely read the detail of that Commonwealth Fund report. Much of the data that were used data from the previous Labour Government.
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman will also find that the NHS improved over those years. We were second when the Labour Government were in power, so we have improved, and more data are still coming through. That is backed by public confidence, which has gone up by 5 percentage points to its second-highest level in the period covered by the report. The number of people in England who think that they are treated with dignity and respect increased from 63% in 2010 to 76% last year, according to Ipsos MORI. Record numbers say that their care is safe, and the number who think that the NHS is one of the best systems in the world has increased by 24 percentage points in the seven years since Mid Staffs. That is a great base from which to start, but we need to continue working with healthcare professionals to secure the seven-day NHS that we need and people want to see. Shouting and using the NHS as a political football will not get us very far.
Helen Hayes
The hon. Gentleman talks about the need to work with NHS staff. One of my constituents, who is a trainee anaesthetist, wrote to me in great detail with her concerns about the impact of the proposed contract change. At the end of her email, she said:
“As a final insult, Simon Stephens, Chief Executive of NHS England, has announced plans to pay for fitness classes for NHS workers, to improve our health and reduce absenteeism. NHS staff are screaming out to be cared for so we can care for others—by employing enough of us on fair contracts, with adequate resources to do our jobs well. Zumba will not achieve this.”
Although there is nothing wrong with employers investing in fitness classes for their employees, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in a crisis situation, this is simply adding insult to injury?
Paul Scully
In his King’s Fund speech, the Secretary of State talked about working with professionals, including the British Medical Association and other organisations, throughout September. That example is why we need to keep the dialogue going. I have seen nothing substantive in speeches by Ministers to pitch them into conflict with the vast majority of NHS staff. It is about change management. Change is always difficult, but change we must do. We can achieve much more together.
Maria Caulfield
Does my hon. Friend agree that staff morale has been an issue for decades? I worked in the hospital in his constituency during the previous Labour Government, and what demoralises staff most is the NHS being used as a political football. Opposition Members are screaming, “We have found data!” But it is not their data; it is patients’ data and the staff’s data. We need to work together. I commend my hon. Friend for saying that we need to work together and stop using the NHS as a political football.
Paul Scully
We can take every small initiative, such as the fitness classes, and find offence because the NHS has a limited budget. When staff look at whether there will be a pay increase and what that pay increase and the conditions might be, they tend to find such examples if they are not happy with what is on offer. Obviously, I cannot comment on that particular example.
Change management is always difficult, but we need to change. I believe that we can achieve such change under the calm, professional stewardship of the Secretary of State and his ministerial team.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
We have a wonderful resource in the national health service, but it cannot be preserved in aspic. I am lucky enough to have been treated by these wonderful consultants, which is why I am here. Society and medical technologies are changing at an alarming pace. The importance of the central asset of NHS staff cannot be overestimated, and the interest from my colleagues today shows how much Government Members value them. I am the daughter of a nurse, and I am the mother of a health professional. I get berated long and hard on how tough things were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) alluded to, and how tough things are. That is a constant state, but let us be realistic: there will be a deficit this year of enormous proportions. Rather than throw in yet another figure, we know the deficit is large, and we know it is a problem.
Do I believe the premise of this petition? No. Important decisions have to be made if we are to focus on the primary need of patient outcomes. The question is how we treat people efficiently, effectively and with compassion. Hospital managers and consultants may say that the changes will deliver a 21st-century model of care that will safeguard both the patient interest and the cost-effectiveness of services, but that is quite wordy and is making everything the same problem. We do not all have the same problem. I completely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on rural GPs. There are rural GPs in my constituency who are already feeling stretched, and asking them to deliver two more days of cover—seven days in total—with no more staff is not the answer. We must link training and recruitment, and we must work on a delivery mechanism that means not only the 5,000 extra GPs that we have promised but less box-ticking to free up their time, which would not go amiss. It has been said that we do not have enough GPs, but it takes five years to train a GP. Anyone who starts university now will not be qualified by the end of this Parliament. We are dealing with the legacy of the tail end of the Labour Government, which is one reason why we do not have enough doctors.
I am from a business background, and I ask simply how we can do more with less. Do I believe that the way to achieve better care in our hospital settings is not to have access to seven-day patient services? No, I do not. Do I think that if a child is knocked off their bike on a Saturday or a dad has a heart attack on a Sunday, doctors and nurses should struggle to deliver optimal service without the important back-up of diagnostic services? No, I do not. Why is it that, although an acute bed costs about £900 a night, patients in our hospitals cannot be admitted or discharged as easily on Saturdays and Sundays as on Mondays and Thursdays? One problem is that we cannot discharge. It is not all about who is coming in the front door; it is also about who is going out the back door. It is a real strain.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
My local trust, Oxford University Hospitals trust, has recently started a “perfect week” scheme, in which it makes all resources available to all those who work in the hospital system. It has discovered that one main barrier to discharge on Saturdays and Sundays is that pharmaceutical staff are not available at all hours of the day and night. Would it be possible to roll out that concept of a perfect week elsewhere?
Jo Churchill
It is a very good idea. The lack of pharmacy provision in hospitals is often cited as one obstacle to patient discharge. The cost of not discharging someone on a Friday, meaning that they use a bed on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, is £2,700, which is a lot of money.
Helen Jones
The hon. Lady was not in the House when we debated this Government’s change to local government finance, but at the time, many of us warned that it would hit social care and impact on our hospitals. Does she accept that hospitals are having great difficulty discharging patients, not only at weekends but during the week, because social care is not available for them?
Jo Churchill
I would say that it is a mixed picture. What I am picking up from care homes in my constituency is that some wards do it more effectively than others, with better services and things better locked together. Although I accept that there may be a problem, again, I look to the leadership.
I gave birth to some of my children on a Saturday and Sunday. Their entrance did not appear any less special to the obstetrician than those of my children who appeared midweek. I am not consultant-bashing; this is reality. The NHS has been delivering consultants and staff who provide outstanding service, but one cannot deny the statistic that patients’ chance of survival is less if they are admitted to a hospital at the weekend. Even if we extrapolate from those figures to account for the fact that the people admitted at the weekend are often very poorly, and often very elderly, they tell us that there is a problem. It would be remiss of this or any Government not to ask why or to investigate the situation and consider how to provide solutions.
I will not talk about people’s pay or anything else; we have done that. Instead, I shall focus on the petition, which in my view is neither constructive nor helpful. I would like the Government to learn from the best practice of consultants and their teams. Brilliant ideas are out there if we can only harness that best practice. For example, at the virtual fracture clinic at my West Suffolk hospital, a consultant told me that he has cut the number of times that patients must visit the hospital. Work can be done remotely; even discharges can be done on the phone, and those who need further specialist help can be sent on. We need to have honest conversations about the NHS. We need to use its finite resources, including staff, more sensibly if we are to survive.
We have 1.4 million great people working in our NHS, and 1.6 million people working in our social care sector. That is one tenth of this country’s population. We all agree that a seamless pathway between the two is the best future, but I leave Members with this question. If we cannot discuss a way forward that allows us to accept change, understand and develop new ways of working, we may struggle to look after the burgeoning health population, and there may be more than contracts to think about.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Vaz, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. I am a passionate supporter of a seven-day-a-week national health service. That might take many formats; it is not a one-size-fits-all situation, so what works in my constituency might be different from what works in someone else’s.
I will not repeat what many of my colleagues have already said, but I think that we need an honest debate. There are difficulties to get over; my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) in particular has described them. We will have to work together and compromise on certain things, but if we do not debate the issue and find a resolution, patients will die from lack of access to good out-of-hours care. We need to tackle it. To be 16% more likely to die just because of the day of the week one is admitted to hospital is not good enough in this day and age.
However, it is not just about the impact on patients and their relatives; it is also about the impact on staff. Tribute has rightly been paid in this debate to staff, senior consultants and doctors who work long hours and come in at weekends. Many of them do so unofficially because they are dedicated, but I want to represent staff who work out of hours because it is part of their contract. I have been a nurse for more than 20 years. I have worked in the community on weekends, when patients without access to a GP have needed painkillers or an urgent dressing and it is difficult to get hold of a doctor. I have been in charge of wards on weekends and nights, when patients tend to be sicker because as medicine has progressed, patients who are well are often discharged earlier, so those left in hospital are often sicker than they would have been a decade ago.
Along with the reduced skill mix that I highlighted earlier, the pressure on nurses, healthcare assistants and other ancillary staff is huge. Two or three staff on night duty with a poorly patient who is septic might have one doctor on call handling four or five other wards, who might have 10 admissions that night to see to first. The staff will have expanded their skills so that they can cannulate the patient, take their bloods and send them off to the labs, but that is the limit of what they can do. It is hugely stressful. I know from having been in charge of a team of nurses on nights how difficult it can be.
That cannot continue. It is not good for patients—we know that their mortality and morbidity rates get worse—and it is not good for staff or for their morale. I have seen nurses in tears after a busy night shift during which we could not care for a patient the way we should have, because we had no access to senior medical advice. Yes, it is possible to phone the consultant on call and have a chat with them, but nothing beats having the advice of an expert who can interpret an X-ray or blood results and who can help junior medical staff prescribe the right antibiotics.
A great example introduced in the past couple of years is the acute oncology service, which has transformed out-of-hours care for cancer patients. As a sister in a research unit not far down the road, I know what a difference that has made to my patients. For some reason, patients tend to get really poorly at half-past 4 on a Friday afternoon, come what may. I have been so pleased with that service, which is now available up and down the country and offers trained senior nurses, doctors and a whole team of people who can assess a patient and get treatment going. For conditions such as sepsis, it is life-saving. Those with spinal cord compression can have a scan urgently and be started on steroids straight away. That is the difference between a patient being able to walk during the last six months of their life and being bed-bound.
That is out-of-hours care at its best, but of course difficulties and contentious issues will arise when renegotiating contracts. It is not just about consultants and senior staff. Proper out-of-hours care will require support services such as radiologists, radiographers and pharmacists. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) spoke about the perfect week; I could talk to hon. Members day in, day out about how many patients we kept in hospital over the weekend because we could not access drugs to send them home. That is not a great use of hospital resources, but more importantly that is not a great experience for patients and their relatives.
Support services make a huge difference, but my plea is that we do not use the debate as an opportunity to score political goals. We have to work together. If we do not work cross-party on this, we will be here in 10 years’ time. Patients will lose out and their families will lose loved ones if we do not make a difference. It will not be easy. Nobody will be happy about working different hours. We are not asking people to work more than 40 hours a week; we are just asking people to work differently. We are not even just talking about how we work, but about a systems change in the culture of the NHS, so that the patient at half-past 4 on a Friday afternoon does not think, “What lies ahead for me this weekend?” I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to be as constructive as possible.
Helen Jones
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she has been most generous in giving way. She says that she is not expecting NHS staff to work more than 40 hours a week; did she mean to say that? Many of them already work more than 40 hours a week. Is it now Government policy that no one in the NHS should work more than 40 hours a week?
Maria Caulfield
Of course. I have worked more than 40 hours a week; many staff do. We are not asking staff to work more hours—we have been very clear—but we are asking staff to work differently. I do not think that there is anything wrong with that if it provides a better service for the patient and takes the pressure off those front-line staff who are without radiology support, laboratory support and senior cover support. I ask the hon. Lady to support the measures and work with us, so that we can work with healthcare professionals to achieve that. They need senior support out of hours, because they need someone to interpret test results, make decisions to discharge a patient and break bad news when results are not good, and they need senior expertise to refer to others to move the process forward. My plea is that is we all work together.
I welcome the debate this afternoon. It is good to have it. I am pleased that healthcare professionals flag up issues, because I do not want policies to be steamrollered in, as they have been in the past, and for us to sit here 10 years later reaping the results. I welcome the seven-day-a-week initiative and the move to change the culture and the system, so that ultimately patients see improvement in patient care.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Vaz; I missed the first few minutes of the debate owing to a delegated legislation Committee, so I appreciate your calling me to speak. I speak not as a healthcare professional, but as a husband, father and proud supporter of our NHS. I am passionate about our NHS, because it has always been there for me and my family when we needed it. My daughter was born in Colchester general hospital and my son sadly passed away there in October last year. I cannot fault the care and compassion that the NHS gave me and my family, and I will never forget that. Yet, I am bombarded with criticism that, as I am a Conservative, I must somehow care less about the NHS than the Labour party does. The scaremongering and empty rhetoric is patronising and insulting. It has to stop.
I spent several months, as we all did, speaking with constituents in the run-up to the general election. The message I received was loud and clear: they care deeply about our NHS and want us to work together to address the underlying causes and challenges facing it—challenges like an ageing population and the rise in long-term health conditions like diabetes and dementia. They do not want cheap party political point scoring.
I am fortunate to represent a constituency with a large general hospital. The pressures on my own hospital are well known, as it is currently in special measures. Last year, we saw a major incident declared in relation to accident and emergency. I desperately want Colchester hospital to come out of special measures as soon as possible. However, I want it to happen only when the healthcare regulators feel that it has improved significantly enough to warrant it. Although I and many others were saddened to see Colchester receive an inadequate rating from the CQC, that close scrutiny is absolutely necessary. High standards at the trust are needed to address some of the deep-rooted issues facing the hospital. That is why I welcome the steps taken by the Secretary of State to introduce such a rigorous inspection regime, which puts patient safety at its heart.
I do not recognise the assertions of the petition we are debating today. The changes to contracts and conditions for workers in the NHS are absolutely vital to help us deliver the seven-day NHS that we all need. Diseases and illnesses do not strike only in the working week. Patients should get the same high-quality, safe care on a Saturday and Sunday as they do on a weekday. To take the case of my grandmother, who also sadly passed away last year, why can someone diagnosed with cancer at the beginning of the week have radiotherapy within two to three days, but someone diagnosed at the end of the week have to wait until Monday? That is not acceptable, which is why we need better flexibility in NHS staff contracts, going hand in hand with recruiting more doctors, consultants and nurses to staff those enhanced services.
Colchester general hospital emergency department has undergone a major reform programme over the past six months, which has contributed significantly to a sustained improvement in performance. The trust invested in three rapid assessment and diagnostic units, which have increased the department’s ability to assess and treat patients rapidly, resulting in shorter stays. In addition, there is now an action plan in place to address low staffing levels, which have improved significantly on every shift. The trust is welcoming a cohort of new substantive nurses, who are joining following a successful recruitment campaign. I sat on the recruitment panel for the new chief executive of the trust, Frank Sims, and I am very confident that he will be able to help turn the trust around. He has a strong record on staff engagement and working with partner organisations—two areas in which our trust desperately needs to improve.
I want to put on record the help and support that the Secretary of State has given Colchester general hospital. He has visited twice during the past year and has taken a genuine interest in our local healthcare. I also very much welcome the recent announcement about the success regime, which shows the determination of the Secretary of State to address the underlying issues facing the NHS in Essex and tackle them head on. Identifying problems, bringing in better leadership and helping our health and care systems to work better together is, in my view, the right approach.
NHS professionals tell us what is needed to address the underlying issues in the system: better self and family care; early diagnosis of illness and response; more focus on preventive healthcare; faster access to medication; community-based care where appropriate; and quicker discharge into community services. We can argue and debate about the process and the different ways of implementing the change our NHS needs. We can debate the funding. We could and should debate the future challenges. Make no mistake, our NHS will need to adapt over the next five years to keep pace with our changing demography and society, but let us make it a grown-up debate based on evidence and professional opinion, not conjecture and scaremongering.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I declare an interest: I am a doctor and member of the British Medical Association, and I still work in the hospital.
We are talking about data showing that people admitted at the weekend are more likely to die within 30 days than those admitted on weekdays. It is important to listen to what Bruce Keogh said, which is that it would be misleading to assume that all of those deaths could be prevented. We use terms as if the deaths were avoidable or talk about people “dying unnecessarily”, but we do not know. We must understand what the data show. There is nothing wrong with the data and nothing that can ever be bigger, because the NHS is the biggest single health service in the world. Professor Freemantle has done the work twice and the pattern is there, but it is not people dying at the weekend; it is important to realise that his data show the reverse. They show fewer people dying on a Saturday or Sunday then dying on a Wednesday. What is higher is the number of people who are admitted, and we need to understand that. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said, they are sicker people. On a Saturday, there are 25% more people in the most ill category and on a Sunday there are 35% more people in that category.
[Mrs Cheryl Gillan in the Chair]
It was said that there was an increased number of deaths among elective patients admitted on a Sunday, and people wondered why that was. As a surgeon with a Monday list, I can say that the norm now is that patients come in on the morning of surgery. So, for me to get permission for someone to come in on a Sunday, let alone a Saturday, means that that person has complex co-morbidity. If we are simply looking at additional populations, we cannot simply use a broad sweep and assume that all of this can be changed, because it cannot be; these people are inherently more ill, whether they are elective patients or emergency patients. Those data are absolutely there and they remain when we re-analyse them or try to balance them, so this issue needs to be tackled.
There are a few myths going around, including the idea that the opt-out clause is a major barrier. The opt-out clause that was cited was for routine work. Consultants do not get to opt out of emergency work at night or at weekends if they work in an acute service. If a consultant works in a service where acute provision is at all relevant, that acute provision is part of what they do and they do not get to opt out of it. Nine out of 10 consultants work out of hours and the other 10% are engaged in specialties for which there is not an acute service.
There has been talk about getting people to work for only 40 hours. My colleagues who are still up the road holding it together work for 48 hours and they simply cannot work more than that because it is illegal under the European working time directive to do so. Most consultants within the acute system work 48 hours a week, and I am sure that those of us who are married to them or simply aware of them will be well aware of that fact; indeed, we will have been told that in no uncertain terms in the last few months.
It is important that we focus what we do on trying to save the lives of those among those 11,000 people who can be saved. When I was a junior doctor, I was aware that getting scans out of hours or at weekends was very difficult, and so patients hit “pause” for a few days. I do not think there is that much difference in services; I find it hard to believe that there is. In Scotland, the situation has been changing for five or 10 years, not by threatening or cajoling people but simply by evolving. Our consultant radiologists cover the entire weekend; our stroke patients get CTs; and our heart attack patients go straight to get angiography, will get an angioplasty there and then, and will go home after breakfast the next morning. So this idea that we have big tracts of those in medicine sitting home watching “Coronation Street” is not true.
The NHS will be cash-strapped; it has to save £22 billion per year in the next five years, which is a big challenge. So now is not the time to say, “We can provide GP services eight to eight, seven days a week.” The pilots have not been successful. The uptake was 50% for Saturday and 12% for Sunday, and some of those pilots reported that there was great difficulty in covering the out-of-hours GP service, which people who feel unwell should be going to, because what was being talked about was totally routine.
Both in hospital and in primary care, we need to focus our attention on improving the access for people who feel unwell, which includes people being able to access a GP and not having to go to A&E with something that means they do not need to be there. That is recognised within the profession, but it is important for people to work together towards that aim rather than pulling out the pin and throwing a grenade at somebody, which is obviously how the profession regards what has happened during the summer. Like many people in Westminster Hall today, I was inundated by messages from colleagues, including from doctors south of the border who I do not know at all. They were very angry at the statement on 16 July that senior doctors do not work outside 9 to 5, which is patently not true.
We need to look at what we should do about these figures. One of the groups that shows the effect of this situation very strikingly is stroke patients. However, research by Bray looked at 103 stroke units, including units where there was seven-day consultant review through the day, and compared them. There was absolutely no difference between that seven-day service and units where there was a routine ward round and no ward rounds at the weekend. What made a significant difference was the ratio of fully trained registered nurses to patients. When that ratio was halved, so that there were twice as many nurses, the mortality was reduced by a third. So, before we go rushing into policy, even if we are working cross-party it is important to understand the data sufficiently to answer the question, “Do we need more doctors or do we actually need more nurses?” That is a pretty important question to answer before any moves are made.
It is also important to focus on the emergency side. People say, “Well, Tesco is open 24/7”. Actually, it is not open 24/7 totally. People will not find the fishmonger 24/7; the baker will not be making fresh bread; and there will not a butcher producing fresh cuts of meat. It will be the basic system that is open 24/7, so let us not confuse matters. And frankly, we can generate a person to work in Tesco, stacking shelves or operating the till, an awful lot quicker than we can create a GP, which will take 10 years because there are five years of medical school and then five years of training, or a consultant, which requires five years of medical school and—in my time—about 15 or 16 years of training.
There is no quick fix for this situation and we cannot afford to take on extra staff, but actually the money would be the easiest bit because we do not have the extra staff. The Government talk about 5,000 extra GPs and yet the British Medical Association shows that we will lose 10,000 GPs in the next five years. That means that we would need 15,000 GPs, and we simply cannot produce that number. So we need to ensure that we hang on to all the doctors we have, including the junior doctors, because that partly comes down to what those junior doctors see, including how they see their seniors working and what they think of that as a career. I say that because junior doctors have always gone to places such as Australia but they used to come back; now they are not coming back.
This whole matter could have been handled better, but the issue is working with people. The Scottish Government are also working towards seven-day cover, but they have been very clear that what they are talking about—the priority within that system—is seven-day cover for people who are ill. That means expanding the out-of-hours service for GPs and expanding what is available to us as senior doctors inside hospitals. That is the route that must be followed, and not the use of a grenade.
After the Francis report and the increase in the number of nurses being taken on to try to get the figures that are sought, what we had at the beginning of the summer was trusts that are struggling being told, “Cut back. Don’t use agencies. Don’t replace people unless they’re absolutely crucial.” We need to give serious thought about whether it is actually more nurses that we need before we rush in to bring in a whole lot—
Maria Caulfield
I welcome the hon. Lady’s thoughts and agree with a lot of what she has said. On the issue of nurses, does she agree that it is not just the number of nurses that matters but the skills mix? Because of budget constraints, what has happened over the past two decades is that the skill of senior nurses has been cut back, and those senior nurses are now often not on duty at nights and weekends, which has made a crucial difference.
Dr Whitford
I made the point that Bray’s paper talked about registered nurses—so, degree nurses—and that reflects the skill mix.
We need to know what the actual problem is rather than just running in and throwing ideas and policies around. Attacking staff who work very hard and for really long hours is not very fruitful. We need NHS staff to believe in the political decisions, the guidance and the direction being taken in the future, so I simply suggest that everyone in this House look at the way forward.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
When time permits, it is our practice in Westminster Hall that when a Member has been here for the opening speeches and then had to step out temporarily, we give them the opportunity to speak. So I call Andrea Jenkyns to speak.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Gillan. I will be brief, but I wanted to make a few points that I feel are important. I am speaking in this debate because I truly support the NHS. I have worked in it for the past four years, through the charity sector, and my sister also works in it. The NHS is a vital national institution, and we must protect it and make sure that it is secure for the next generation. However, that does not mean that it is constituted in a way that is perfect. There are many flaws, which must be addressed to ensure that the service is in step with people’s lives in this rapidly changing world.
With more medical innovation comes more advanced treatment. Diseases that 20 years ago might have been a death sentence can now be easily treated, but only if we provide people with the care that they need, when they need it. Patients should not be worried about going into hospital on a weekend, thinking they might not be able to see a consultant to diagnose their complaint. That is why I fully support the Government’s plans for a truly seven-day NHS.
Let us not forget that the recommendations come from independent bodies that have reviewed the pay and conditions of senior managers in the NHS. The recommendations would bring about real change and ensure that people could access the treatment they needed, when they needed it. It is about ensuring that key decision-making staff are there to support people when they most need it. That will ensure that we start to treat people as soon as possible after their diagnosis. There should be no situation where consultants can demand extremely high fees to provide a service to patients out of hours. Other key public sector workers cannot do that.
The change is only possible through the Government’s investment of £10 billion in the NHS, and through the determination to ensure that the NHS provides the best possible services to patients and reassurance to families whose loved ones are unwell, and ensures better outcomes for all. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) mentioned the demoralisation of NHS staff. Trials of seven-day services have already taken place in such hospitals as Salford and Northumbria, and according to the Government’s statistics, those hospitals have increased patient care and staff morale.
I briefly turn to the substance of the petition that led to the debate. For the past four years, I have worked on health issues. Since I have been elected, I have become a member of the Health Committee and have set up an all-party group on patient safety. The Health Secretary has been attacked, with calls for a vote of no confidence, but since I have been elected, he has been absolutely fantastic. Throughout the work I have done, not only on the Health Committee, but in setting up the all-party group, he has been there to support me with help and guidance. I am planning a major national campaign on hand washing, and he has met charity representatives. He is a person to lead our NHS. Every time I speak with him, I am hugely impressed by his compassion, knowledge and drive to make real improvements to the service and the lives of those who work in it. I have no doubt that he is the right man to drive through improvements to the health service, and I have every faith that he, as much as anyone else, wants to improve the NHS, to work closely with the staff and to ensure that the changes to how they work are well received and appropriate to their needs.
I return to the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Warrington North. She accused the Secretary of State of attacking NHS staff. She has said that the NHS is under threat from this Government. During the election campaign, Labour tried to weaponise the NHS, and she has continued that agenda today. The debate should, however, include a view of the NHS under Labour’s tenure. If we are looking at staff costs, we should look at the massive increase in agency costs that began under the last Labour Government. From 2007 to 2009, spending on agency staff increased by 60% and continued to rise in the five years of the previous Government because of the shackles placed on contracts by Labour. That situation is being addressed by the Secretary of State, with caps on costs for agency staff bringing down costs for trusts. While Labour is busy weaponising the NHS, the Secretary of State is trying to undo the damage done to the service under Labour.
My experience of the NHS has not always been good. Sometimes it has been fantastic; other times it has been not so great, such as when I lost my father to a hospital-acquired infection. I am encouraged by the work that is being done on improvements.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Gillan. We have had a good debate, and it is a pleasure to speak in it, for a number of reasons. This opportunity comes with a number of pressures. I note that this is the first debate relating to an e-petition under the new system. As the shadow teams are still being put together, I am not sure whether this will be my last outing as a shadow Health Minister or as a shadow Minister altogether, but patience is a virtue and time will tell.
It is a particular pleasure to respond to my good friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who opened the debate. From my slightly partisan perspective as the shadow Health Minister, I thought she made a devastating critique of the Government’s record on the NHS. She will be an outstanding Chair of the Petitions Committee, which is, again, a parliamentary first. I declare an interest: in my first Parliament, from 2005 to 2010, I was a member of the Procedure Committee, and we looked at the practicalities of having a proper petitions facility and a petitions Committee to back that up in the House of Commons. The wheels of democracy take a long time to turn, but here we are 10 years later with the Petitions Committee, debating the first of the probably great number of petitions already lodged with the House of Commons. I welcome my hon. Friend to her post.
While I am making welcoming remarks, I welcome the promotion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) to the role of shadow Health Secretary today. She will be a doughty campaigner for the NHS in that role, as she has been for her constituency, not least because she cut her teeth on the Lewisham hospital issue.
I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has served diligently and excellently as the shadow Health Secretary for the past four years. I have been privileged to work under him. He has been committed to the national health service in his time as a Health Minister and as the Health Secretary, and in his time in opposition.
There was a need to adjust the terms of the debate to ensure that we addressed the issues and not the personalities, but we have all alluded to why we are here, what triggered the petition and the reasoning behind it. Government Members might want no challenge to their record and policies, but the fact is that while we agree on a large area of health policy—where we do, it is right that there is consensus—we will not avoid political debate just because it is uncomfortable for some Members. It is right that where the Opposition—whichever parties they may be—have differences of opinion with the Government of the day, we are able to raise them.
When it comes to the seven-day NHS, the Health Secretary has a habit of spinning the data to suit his purpose and to divert attention away from some of the Government’s failures on the NHS. Of all his public pronouncements since the election, the most controversial —indeed, it inspired many people to sign the petition—was his suggestion that NHS staff are avoiding working at the weekend. As we heard from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), that is just not the case, and she speaks with a vast amount of experience. Let me reiterate: it is not true, and we know it is not true.
I want to place on record my appreciation and thanks to all who work in our NHS: the consultants, the doctors, the nurses, the support staff and the ancillary staff. They do a tremendous, often thankless job under difficult circumstances. The deluge of social media users sharing photos of themselves working at the weekend on wards and in surgeries demonstrated just how absurd the Health Secretary’s claim was. Indeed, according to a series of freedom of information requests, only 1% of consultants in our health service actually opt out of weekend working.
The Health Secretary told consultants they needed to “get real”, but it is the Health Secretary who needs to get real. Rather than picking fights with hard-working NHS staff, he should be consulting them on the best way to deliver seven-day services. If the Government are serious about delivering further weekend care, they have to stop coming out with speculation and conjecture, and must urgently define what they want to deliver and how they plan to pay for it. Demonising doctors who are already working evenings and weekends will get us nowhere.
A seven-day NHS is the aim of all those who want the best health service in the world—I include myself among them—but to achieve one, we have to listen to those on the frontline and address their concerns. Staff are rightly worried about losing their antisocial hours pay, the effect of which could be devastating for huge numbers of assistants and nurses. Working at night is as expensive as shifts get, with transport and childcare being more expensive or totally unavailable, and all the evidence shows that night shifts have a detrimental effect on people’s health. It is only right that such shifts are appropriately compensated. I sincerely hope that the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will address that point in his reply.
We must not forget that the seven-day NHS pledge has been made many times before. It was in the 2010 Conservative manifesto. The Prime Minister repeated it in October 2013, and in September 2014, and of course it was also in the Conservatives’ 2015 election manifesto. The question I am pondering is: if they promised it before and failed to deliver it, why on earth should anyone believe them this time? We would all welcome a seven-day service, but that must be matched by the funding necessary to recruit, support and, importantly, retain hard-working NHS staff. We have already heard that there is a shortage of nurses; there are fewer nurses per head of the population than in 2009-10. The head of Health Education England, Ian Cumming, said earlier this year that
“GP recruitment is what keeps me awake at night.”
The scale of the recruitment crisis is startling even to those of us who have been following the fortunes of the two Health Secretaries since 2010. The coalition Government were wrong to cut training places as one of their first acts, and immigration policy is not joined up with the need for recruitment from abroad. If adequate numbers of staff are not being trained at home, the two polices do not make any sense together. As we have heard, retention is a big challenge; it is about not only the new staff coming through the system but the staff leaving at the other end.
My message to the Minister and the Health Secretary is this: if they want to deliver a seven-day NHS, we will work with them, but they will not achieve it by picking a fight with staff and, importantly, they will not achieve it unless it is properly funded. The Conservatives made many promises on the NHS before the election, many of which the Government have already dropped, and many more of which have not been funded. If the seven-day NHS promise is to be realised, I implore the Minister to work closely with the health service unions and actually go out and speak to the health professionals that keep our system going.
More broadly, we need a serious debate about how services are organised across the whole week, so that people can stay healthy in their own homes. The Minister and I have debated the concept of whole-person care on numerous occasions—in fact, we debated it at length both before and during the general election. There was a degree of consensus around the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh. We desperately need to make sure that all parts of our health and care service work together to ensure that care focuses on the individual.
It is no good Government Back Benchers lauding the ring fence for the NHS budget when, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, social care budgets have been ransacked. I should not need to remind Government Members, but the fact is that social care cuts are NHS cuts because of the pressure that they cause throughout the health system. Let us look carefully at the workforce issues that triggered the petition and this debate. Let us work with staff, because without them the NHS will not be transformed into that single health and social care service. For all of us who care about the NHS, ultimately that must be our goal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Gillan, as it was to serve under the previous Chair, Ms Vaz.
This is an important and exciting day because we are responding to the first e-petition under the new system. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is quite right that it should have happened some time earlier. I hope that through what are pretty modest forays into social media we can make more popular the debates that take place in Westminster Hall, because they are often far more thoughtful and certainly more nuanced than some of the debates that one hears just a few hundred yards away.
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), for her introduction. Hers was a vigorous opening argument and certainly did what it should have done, which was to spur a good and, at many points, enlightening debate. There is much to which I would like to respond, but at times the debate turned into a general critique of the NHS, so if I tried to answer every point, Mrs Gillan, I think we would be here beyond the 7.30 pm cut-off that you and, I imagine, other Members would not like me to reach.
The debate encompassed many of the issues and problems that confront the NHS, as do all discussions of seven-day services because they touch on contract reform and how we manage the NHS workforce. At the core of the debate was what we are trying to do: deliver exceptional, world-class care to every patient coming to an NHS institution, hospital, GP or community service in England and, by extension, the other nations of this country.
I, too, pay tribute to some shadow Front Benchers. I am grateful for the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. I almost wish he had not said what he did, because I wanted to say that I hope he keeps his Front-Bench position. He has always been a very reasonable defender of the Labour party’s point of view and a strong interrogator of the Government’s policies. That is exactly what opposition should provide. I should take the opportunity to say how much I will miss his colleague, the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), with whom I sat in this Chamber a couple of days ago for his last debate as a shadow Minister. I did not have the opportunity then—the moment escaped me, and I did not have knowledge or foresight about where he would be on Saturday—to wish him well and say how much I had, in my short time as a Minister, enjoyed debating important issues in the Chamber with him.
It is also entirely right to say that the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has been Secretary of State for Health, a Health Minister before that, and a shadow Secretary of State for a long time. His contribution to debates about the NHS has been very important. It is clear from how he speaks that he cares passionately about the health service, and I very much hope that he delivers the same kind of force of argument in his new position as shadow Home Secretary.
It will be good to see what the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), brings to her role. I hope that she will enter into arguments and debates on NHS reform with the spirit of openness and decency shown by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who often attends these debates, bringing a great deal of personal experience from both this country and abroad, and who makes sure—no doubt because we often feel chastised if it goes any other way—that the debate is continued with a sense of decorum and a remembrance that our discussions are held in public. We must be aware of the fact that what turns people off political discourse more than anything is a silly repetition of party political positions with no meeting in the middle or discussion of the issues at hand.
It is in that spirit that I hope to address the central point of the presentation of the petition by the hon. Member for Warrington North. I am glad that we have these petitions, although perhaps a little less glad that this particular petition contains such stridency of language. Nevertheless, at the core, what concerns me is the point made very well by the hon. Lady: words matter. That was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). We must be very careful about the words we use—not only the manner in which we say them but how they might or might not be construed.
Hon. Members may not be surprised to hear that I have read—several times, as it happens—the Secretary of State’s speech on this matter. I have also seen the coverage on it, and there is dissonance between the two. At no point did he attack NHS staff or suggest that they are not working in conditions that are often heroic, and at no point did he suggest that we have ended up at this impasse because of a wilful wish on the part of NHS staff not to work at weekends. What was construed from that speech has unfortunately meant that our debate has been about a number of words and phrases that were not used, intended or even suggested.
Turning to the core of the speech, the Secretary of State began by saying that talking about seven-day services is not news to a large number of NHS staff, because nurses, porters, cleaners and many of those working under the “Agenda for Change” contract have, for the entirety of their professional lives, been working in seven-day services. His main contention was that, given the weight of evidence on excess mortality that can be attributed to differential working patterns at weekends and on weekdays, it is at least reasonable to ask what we are doing to ensure that if someone is admitted on a Saturday or a Sunday they can expect the same quality treatment and intensity of consultant and diagnostic support as they would receive on a Wednesday. That suggestion was not plucked out of the blue.
I have two points to make. Given that the petition is an ad hominem attack on the Secretary of State, it is right to say that I have never encountered anyone in a ministerial post who has acquitted himself with as much passion about a point on which he wishes to concentrate—patient safety—as the Secretary of State. The right hon. Member for Leigh recognised that when he was shadow Secretary of State, and it is recognised even by those who often oppose the Secretary of State in the BMA and other professional representation bodies. The fact is that the Secretary of State is passionate about patient safety. He cares deeply about it, which is why he takes an intense interest in gathering evidence about differential mortality rates.
I want to run through in detail where NHS England’s thinking comes from and why the Government have decided to act as they have. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire knows, there have been various academic papers from the United States and some from the United Kingdom on differential mortality, and they contain many of the questions and answers that have been alluded to today. It is certainly true that people are admitted sicker at weekends, which points in part to the need to do something about community and GP services at weekends. That is part of the reason why people are being admitted sicker. If somebody with a serious acute illness is seen on a Wednesday, they will receive a level of service—both diagnostic and consultant support—that they are unlikely to receive in many hospitals on a Saturday or Sunday.
Helen Jones
The Minister is making a sensible point, but could he enlighten us about exactly which services the Government foresee working seven days a week? Has the Department for Health assessed how many extra staff will be required to ensure that happens? NHS staff have got to have days off sometimes, so if they are working at the weekend they will have to have a day off in the middle of the week. How many more staff will we need?
Ben Gummer
Those are very reasonable questions. If the hon. Lady will allow me to continue with what I was setting out, I will certainly answer them.
That assortment of academic research, together with the wide anecdotal evidence from people who have experienced poor care in good hospitals, either for themselves or for their relatives, led NHS England to conduct the Seven Days a Week forum in 2013, which gathered together clinicians to look at the challenge. It produced a clear strategy for dealing with differences in care quality at weekends, compared with the week, and set out 10 clinical standards that it believes hospitals must meet to eradicate the difference between weekday and weekend working. Many hospitals are implementing the 10 clinical standards on a variable basis during weekdays, so the work done for weekends was helpful in determining a standard clinical approach for maximising the ability to reduce avoidable deaths for weekend and weekday admittances. The product of that forum was taken forward by NHS England and incorporated into its five-year forward view, in which the NHS, separately from the Government, made a commitment to seven-day services. It did so not because of the benefits to patients—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) said, that is a secondary reason for pursuing the agenda—but purely because of the need to reduce excess mortality where possible.
This is a challenge on the scale of infections in hospitals. It is our duty not only to find out precisely why excess deaths are happening—as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire correctly said, further work is needed and the data must be understood—but to do what we can as quickly as possible to reduce them where we think they are preventable. That is why NHS England incorporated the seven-day service into its five-year forward view. NHS England asked for an additional £30 billion of spending between 2015 and 2020, of which it said £22 billion can be achieved through efficiencies within the service. It is important to point out to the hon. Member for Warrington North, who made that point, that they are not cuts but genuine efficiencies within the organisation. On top of the £22 billion of internal efficiencies though a better use of IT, to which she alluded, and better job rostering—I will turn to that in a minute—there will need to be an injection of £8 billion to make up the rest of the £30 billion. That package will implement the five-year forward view, which includes seven-day services and many other things of great importance and about which all parties agree, such as shifting resources from providers to primary care, social care and the community sector.
This programme was not invented by the Secretary of State in a speech given to annoy doctors and consultants, much as that might be the impression given by some people on Twitter. It is the policy response of a Government taking seriously the clinical evidence and advice of NHS England, led by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh. We are responding to give NHS England and the providers tools with which they can deliver a seven-day NHS service in hospitals and GP practices.
I turn to the changes in the contracts, which are at the heart of the petition and the speech of the hon. Member for Warrington North. The contract terms are based on a review by the doctors and dentists pay review body, which identified a number of areas where contract reform is needed, including the systems of opt-out and on call. It asked a completely reasonable question: why should it be that some members of the workforce, who are expected to work at weekends as part of their normal shift patterns, do not have the option of an opt-out from their contract, while others—who tend, as it happens, to be far more highly paid than those who do not have the option of an opt-out—do? It proposed a series of changes, which in our view make up a far better contract for both junior doctors and consultants. On balance, we feel that it presents a real opportunity for consultants and doctors to improve not only their working conditions but, in some cases, their pay.
To take some salient examples from the consultants’ contract, we want a far more equitable and reasonable distribution of clinical excellence awards—many consultants are privately critical of how they are awarded—within not a cut to the total consultant budget, but exactly the same existing pay framework.
Dr Philippa Whitford
To point out a slight difference, we do not have those awards in Scotland. We have local discretionary points, but the national clinical awards have been done away with for quite some time. Much as we also struggle with staff, we have not been haemorrhaging them south on that basis.
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady points out that contractual differences already exist between NHS Scotland and NHS England. Officials have looked with interest at the experience of NHS Scotland—one of the pleasures of the devolved NHS system is that we can all learn things from one another. I hope that the new replacement of the clinical excellence award will be perceived as far fairer by clinicians and will reward those surgeons who are giving their utmost in academic research and the professional development of others. That is a tangible improvement to consultants’ terms.
It is important to point out, as several of my hon. Friends have done, that we are talking about ensuring that, at most, consultants work no more than one weekend in every four. That is the basis on which they will be contracted to work in a seven-day NHS. We are not talking about seven days at a time, but about shift rotas and patterns, as many people in professional life already recognise, not least some of those who have spoken in this Chamber. We need to get to a situation in which NHS professionals at the top, as well as those at the bottom, are trusted to organise their life and work patterns according to the professionalism they hold so dear. Many consultants in the NHS want to move to contract reform so that they may express their professionalism in that way, and we need to ensure that it happens so as to bring them with us, rather than its being forced on them.
For that reason, I am delighted that the consultants committee of the BMA has agreed to rejoin negotiations. It has seen that there is a basis for reaching an agreement, which suggests—contrary to some of what has been said by Opposition Members—that things are being done with a sense of collaboration. We have wanted to enter the negotiations for some time. The BMA, for reasons no doubt connected with the election—probably understandably—decided to withdraw from negotiations, but it has now come back. We and the consultants committee can reach a good position on the proposed contract.
The junior doctors’ contract is a proposal of great strength, not least because we include a significant increase in basic pay rates, which should be welcomed across the board. The contract addresses one of the points made by the hon. Member for Warrington North and does something important for the way in which junior doctors are perceived by their management. Instead of offering, in effect, danger money for excess hours, which is surely not the way to manage a workforce, it gives junior doctors a right to a review of their hours, so that they may properly manage their work rotas and patterns. For the first time, that will be enshrined in their contract. They will have far more predictable work patterns; providers—employers—will be forced to think seriously about work-life balance when constructing the roster; and, on pay and on the offer to juniors for their working life, the proposed contract will produce a far happier outcome.
I had hoped that the juniors committee would already have agreed to come back to the table, and I remain hopeful. The committee is meeting imminently—in six minutes’ time, in fact—and I hope that it is listening to the words in this Chamber, because hon. Members and others listening have heard nothing from both Government and Opposition Members but unalloyed praise for NHS staff and a real desire to work cross-party to secure the kinds of advances in quality that everyone wishes to see. With the juniors at the table, we could reach a constructive and reasonable resolution to the need to change their contract. That need was impressed on Ministers not only by the DDRB—the review body on doctors and dentists remuneration, but by the NHS’s own independent pay review body. Many in the service, perhaps more quietly than those who have been most exercised on Twitter, know that it is necessary.
Helen Whately
Is the Minister aware that if we compare the number of staff in a particular NHS service with the demand for that service over time, we can see that demand is sometimes highest when staff numbers are at their lowest? Demand and staff numbers do not match well. Is there not an opportunity to look at changing staff shifts and rotas to ensure that there is the greatest number of staff when demand is greatest?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The whole purpose of what we are doing through contract reform is to match the professionalism of doctors, consultants and those working on agenda for change contracts—nurses and so forth—with the demands of any particular hospital. That cannot be decided by me or NHS England, but has to be decided in each setting, because of the differences—sometimes subtle and sometimes wild—between hospitals. In a study of some 15 hospitals released a couple of years ago, it was noticeable that there was 3.6 times more consultant cover for acutely ill people on a Wednesday than on a Saturday, even though 3.6 times more people were not acutely ill on a Saturday. The comparison is roughly drawn, but it points to a mismatch between rostered staff and peak patient flows. Most hospital managers would not only accept that point, but offer it to you.
All that suggests that somehow no seven-day NHS working is going on at the moment. As the shadow Minister and other hon. Members have said, however, some hospitals are already delivering an exceptional seven-day service—sometimes at no extra cost at all, and sometimes with only a minimal cost increase. What is most noticeable is that care quality has improved. In some cases that is now measurable, which is very exciting, and we can see reductions in mortality attributed to changes to staff working patterns. The staff, when asked, “What difference has this made to your lives?” point, as the key difference, to the fact that this was led by enthusiastic members of the staff themselves. There we have a pointer as to where we need to go: we need to get staff buy-in at the beginning. When the change is done well, it gives staff far greater control over their working life, which has led in a couple of hospitals to appreciable improvements in staff satisfaction.
Those settings have achieved the trick that we want to see throughout the NHS, which is for contract reform to empower and help staff to deliver care with the professionalism that I and everyone in this Chamber know that they wish to, while delivering better, higher quality care and decreased mortality—all within tight spending constraints, despite the increases to the cash budget that the Government have pledged to the NHS. If we can achieve that, we will have done something very special: we will have dealt with the lack of a link that has existed for too long between patient quality and care, and restrictive contracts that do not reflect how many staff want to work, and certainly do not reflect how patients admit themselves to hospital.
There is one final thing that I would like to add—in fact, it is the penultimate thing, because I must answer the point made by the hon. Member for Warrington North about staff. She is right to say that, of course, seven-day services will, in some disciplines, have an effect on the staff numbers that might or might not be required. That is part of the plan being developed by NHS England, in close association with Health Education England. We are recruiting close to record numbers of nurses, doctors and consultants, and we are doing so in many of the diagnostic specialties as well.
However, this is a question of not just staff numbers, as the hon. Lady recognises, but much smarter rostering and rota-ing, so that we use staff and their time as effectively as they would like us to. It is also a question of the productive use of staff time. She rightly pointed to the bureaucracy that ties people down. In some hospitals—some quite near her constituency—that bureaucracy has been reduced to a very minimum, as a result of which staff have patient contact time of an order of magnitude different from that in hospitals just 50 or 60 miles away. If we can bring all levels of staff exposure to patients—the patients they want to care for, for the maximum period of time—up to the best level in the NHS, we will already have the productivity gains in the workforce that will make possible not just seven-day working but a whole series of other improvements in care quality.
My final point about the opportunity that contract reform gives us was touched on by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who spoke about whistleblowing. It is an important point. When people attack the Secretary of State they should remember that he brought in freedom to speak up and the duty of candour, is bringing whistleblowing champions into the NHS, and has acted on some of the most difficult recommendations of the Francis report. It is this Secretary of State who said for the first time, “If you are employed by the NHS and feel that care is not being delivered in a way that is good for patients, we will prize your voice and listen to you above those who might stop you being heard.”
That kind of message to the system is new. It is so radical that I think many still do not quite believe it could be true, but I hope that the instigation, at some considerable cost, of whistleblowing champions, along with the framework for whistleblowing and the independent national officer, demonstrates to Members and the outside workforce that we are deadly serious about listening to staff, no matter where they work or who manages them, to make sure that we improve patient care wherever possible. We know that improving staff’s experience in their working lives is a crucial part of that.
Although this was not mentioned in the debate, I am conscious that far too many staff in the NHS suffer bullying and harassment. The numbers are almost unheard of in any other walk of life, including the Army and the police. NHS workers unfortunately can expect abuse from members of the public and bullying within management chains to a degree that is unique in the public sector and close to being so across the entire workforce. That is an historical problem that has led to the very high levels of staff sickness that the NHS has carried for decades. It will not be an easy problem to crack, but I have to tell Members that I and the Secretary of State are absolutely committed to doing something about it. NHS staff go to their place of work because they care about patients and about their vocation, but too often can get pushed back by poor management, abusive patients and poor performance management processes, and often feel belittled in what they are doing. If we can do something about their working conditions and improve their working lives, that will be very important, not just for staff but for patients. If we can improve the working practices and the working lives of the 1.3 million people devoted to our nation’s healthcare, we will do so much to help them produce even better care for the patients they serve.
I hope that Members on both sides of the House have come to a broad understanding that the changes anticipated by the contract reform are necessary. It is certainly true that we must take account of the data and listen carefully to the arguments of everyone involved in the provision of NHS services seven days a week, to make sure that changes are made as collaboratively as possible, so long as collaboration is made possible by all parties. We must also bind ourselves to the promise that we should all reflect correctly the words of politicians on both sides of the House, lest their misconstruction cause worry and fear in the outside world. In all that, we must ensure that the changes we make improve the quality of patient care and reduce the excess rate of mortality, which I know everyone, including all Members, would like to come down when and if possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to contracts and conditions in the NHS.
Written Statements
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Charter for Budget Responsibility (Autumn Update)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
Today I have published a draft updated “Charter for Budget Responsibility”, a copy of which has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies are also available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. Alongside the new fiscal framework (announced at summer Budget 2015), the draft includes the updates to the charter recommended by the HM Treasury review of the Office for Budget Responsibility, led by Sir Dave Ramsden and clarifications on the operation of the welfare cap.
The draft charter includes modified guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility and has been published in line with Section 6(4) of the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act. This requires that if the Treasury proposes to modify the guidance to the Office for Budget Responsibility included in the charter, a draft of the modified guidance must be published at least 28 days before the modified charter is laid before Parliament. The updated charter will be laid before Parliament, and a debate and vote scheduled, later in the autumn of 2015.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-09-14/HCWS194.
[HCWS194]
Work of the Department during Summer Recess
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Greg Clark)
I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose on 21 July 2015.
Starter home boost to first-time buyers
On 10 August my Department launched a new £26 million fund to bring forward land for house builders to demonstrate a range of high-quality homes for first-time buyers.
In a further move to support aspiring homeowners my Department has also made available up to £10 million for local authorities to prepare more brownfield land for development of starter homes.
Careers in construction
The housebuilding industry was devastated by the 2008 economic crash, resulting in the loss of quarter of a million construction jobs. Today the sector is making progress thanks to Government efforts to get the country building.
The Government are committed to driving up the number of apprentices across the construction industry. Last year, saw the start of more than 15,500 new construction apprenticeships—a 14% increase on the previous year.
Rogue landlords
The Government are determined to crack down on the small number of rogue or criminal landlords who knowingly rent out unsafe and substandard accommodation.
On 3 August my Department announced a range of new proposed measures, including a blacklist of rogue landlords and letting agents, the introduction of banning orders for serious or repeat offenders, a tougher fit and proper person test, extending rent repayment orders and introducing civil penalties.
Fairness in the planning system
On 31 August new policy came into force from my Department that strengthens the hand of councils to tackle unauthorised development and ensure all communities are treated equally. The new planning policy will make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration that would be weighed in the determination of planning applications and appeals.
The Government are particularly concerned about harm that is caused by intentional unauthorised development in the green belt. For this reason the Planning Inspectorate will monitor all appeal decisions involving unauthorised development in the green belt to enable direct Government oversight.
After six months we will review the situation to see whether it is delivering our objective of protecting land from intentional unauthorised development.
Coastal communities fund
On 22 August new figures released by my Department showed that thousands of new jobs, apprenticeships and training places have been delivered thanks to community-led regeneration efforts supported by the Government’s coastal communities fund.
The latest figures show there have been almost 3,000 jobs created, 860 sustained and 6,800 new training places and apprenticeships across the UK.
Over the past three years, the Government have invested some £120 million in projects across the UK to help seaside communities achieve their economic potential.
On 3 September, a £2 million grant from our coastal communities fund helped light up Blackpool’s illuminations. This funding will drive investment in the north and help seaside communities thrive.
Helping small businesses reach their full potential
In August my Department announced that local organisations working with small firms would be able to apply for a share of €3.6 billion (currently about £2.6 billion) funding from the latest round of the European regional development fund.
European regional development funds are for the first time being targeted at local enterprise partnership areas in a shift towards more localised spending decisions. The funding will support innovation, boost businesses and create jobs across local economies.
Enterprise zones have attracted thousands of new jobs
New figures released by my Department on 27 August show that enterprise zones are playing a vital role in growing the local and national economy and have attracted 19,000 jobs to sites across the country.
The 24 zones report that they have now attracted £2.2 billion of private investment and more than 500 new businesses across a range of key industries including the automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical and renewable energy sectors.
Funding for child sexual exploitation outreach service
On 3 August my Department in conjunction with the Department for Education, the KPMG Foundation and Rotherham Borough Council announced £3.1 million of new funding to help children and young people in South Yorkshire who have been or who are at risk of being sexually exploited receive more support.
Victims of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham have been appallingly let down in the past. Through this funding, the children’s charity Barnardo’s—which has been working in Rotherham since September 2013—will employ a team of 15 specialist workers to help those who have been sexually exploited to rebuild their lives.
These new services will support victims as they seek justice through the courts against the perpetrators. We will also work with schools, families and communities to ensure that they are aware of and vigilant to possible signs of sexual exploitation.
New domestic abuse fund now open
Domestic violence and abuse is a devastating crime that shatters the lives of victims and families and this Government are committed to ensuring that we have a strong safety net for anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they are forced to leave their home.
On 24 August we opened bids for a £3.2 million fund announced in the Budget to provide specialist accommodation-based support to victims of domestic abuse.
The July Budget also announced a review of the full range of services currently available to victims of domestic abuse. Its findings will feed into the spending review and an updated violence against women and girls strategy to ensure that victims of domestic violence and their families have access to the support and services they need to keep safe.
Commemorating first world war heroes
On 21 August we marked the first year of the Victoria Cross paving stone ceremonies, in which communities honour local first world war heroes. The commemorative stones—laid in the servicemen’s place of birth or where they lived following the war—provide a lasting legacy to their “most conspicuous bravery”.
Over a four year period, 469 stones will be laid in communities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They enable residents of all ages and backgrounds to gain a greater understanding of the sacrifices made by local people during the first world war.
Community rights
On 24 July my Department announced that a further 250 communities across England are using the community rights programme to have a greater say on local issues like job creation, health priorities and new development.
Following the launch of the new support programme in February, Government funding is now helping people to apply their skills and local knowledge to making their communities better places to live and work.
Copies of the press notices and associated documents are being placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS195]
Draft Plans to Improve Air Quality (Consultation)
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)
A cleaner, healthier environment benefits people and the economy. Clean air is vital for people’s health and the environment, essential for making sure our cities are welcoming places for people to live and work now and in the future, and to our prosperity. Our ambition is to make the UK a country with some of the very best air quality in the world.
Over recent decades, air quality has improved significantly thanks to concerted action at all levels, including investing some £2 billion since 2011 to increase the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles and cleaner transport, and supporting local authority action. Our environment has never been cleaner. Even in our busiest cities we have seen falls in harmful emissions, for example a 15% reduction in average roadside concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (N02) since 2010, but there is more we can do.
Tackling air pollution is a priority for Government. We will achieve this by exploiting new, clean technologies, such as electric and ultra low emission vehicles, to cut emissions and help our great cities function more smartly and efficiently to spur further innovation, we have opened up our data so that the whole country—people, businesses and the public sector—can use it to take better decisions and action. We will also work with our great cities to help them make the changes they need to become greater still. This could include putting in place clean air zones, improving their bus and taxi fleets, investing in cycling infrastructure and upgrading roads so they run more smoothly.
A key step is addressing reducing nitrogen dioxide in the air we breathe which will also enable us to meet the limit values laid out in the air quality directive1. By 31 December 2015 we will submit a plan to the European Commission detailing the UK approach. The proposed plan sets out national and locally led measures to bring forward compliance with the limit values in all areas of the UK. On Saturday 12 September we published the “Draft plans to improve air quality” for consultation. I have placed this in the Library of both Houses.
Alternative proposals to those set out in the consultation, that achieve the same objectives, will be considered during the consultation and we encourage local authorities and the public to put forward their ideas.
1 European Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe. This sets maximum concentrations of key pollutants in ambient air, i.e. the air that we all breathe.
[HCWS193]
Cold Weather Payments Scheme 2015-16
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
My noble Friend The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) has made the following written statement.
I am pleased to announce that the Department for Work and Pensions intends to lay amendments to the cold weather payment scheme regulations by the end of September 2015. The changes detailed in these regulations will come into force on 1 November this year, in time for the beginning of the winter period.
This year the Met Office has recommended the replacement of two primary weather stations.
First, Tibenham airfield is proposed as a replacement for Norwich airport which is likely to have reduced availability. Tibenham airfield is a similarly representative station for the region and therefore a suitable replacement for Norwich airport both geographically and climatologically. As a direct weather station replacement all postcodes currently linked to Norwich airport will be moved to Tibenham.
Secondly, Llysdinam is proposed as a more suitable station for those areas currently covered by Sennybridge. Llysdinam is geographically and climatologically closer to the main populated areas of the region in and around Llandrindod Wells and Builth Wells. As a direct weather station replacement all the current postcode links will be transferred to this new station.
The regulations also make other minor changes to the alternative weather stations. This will ensure that the weather stations to postcode links are as representative as possible.
I will be writing to each Member whose constituency will be affected by the changes in the scheme, to make them aware of the advice from the Met Office.
Cold weather payments are separate from, and in addition to, winter fuel payments.
The amendments resulted from the Department’s annual review of the cold weather payments scheme. The review drew on expert advice from the Met Office and took account of representations from benefit claimants and Members of Parliament.
For winter 2015-16 the cold weather payment rate will continue to be £25 for each seven day period of very cold weather.
[HCWS192]
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Parkinson
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much valued service to the House.
Food Supply: Sustainability
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure the sustainability of the United Kingdom’s food supply.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Our world-leading food and farming industry is worth £100 billion per year. The Government are developing a long-term plan which will boost productivity, enhancing business resilience across the food chain. Food security depends on access to diverse global markets and, of course, domestic production. Public procurement export plans which lead the way for Great British food producers, clearer labelling and investment in agricultural technologies will all contribute to a sustainable food supply.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. Despite the flexibility given us by last week’s emergency EU summit, which related to early payments under the basic payment scheme, there is a real concern that the Rural Payments Agency will not be able to undertake the necessary checks in time to take advantage of that scheme. Bearing in mind that late autumn and early winter is always a drastic time for farmers’ cash flow, there is likely to be a huge problem in the coming year with the collapse in prices, particularly of milk but also of lamb and beef. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to ensure that farmers have access to financial assistance and relief, given that they will not get through the winter otherwise?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I was at the emergency Agriculture Council last week and spoke on behalf of the United Kingdom. One of the things that we pressed was for the Commission to ensure that some of the checks required on CAP subsidy payments should be removed or changed for this year to enable prompt payment to be made so that there are immediate effects, but, of course, we have a longer-term plan as well.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, building a sustainable food chain requires thought at every stage of the process. Will the Minister explain what is being done in Defra to improve the transportation of the UK’s food supply? The Minister will be aware that 70% of our food chain is chilled at one stage or another, so it would be helpful to know whether we have sustainable cold chains which can be monitored for their impact on pollution.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, of course the department is looking at a range of ways of ensuring that we have a stable supply of food and we want to ensure that the environmental impact of our food supply is also addressed. That is why we have a 25-year plan for food and farming and, alongside that, and complementary to it, a 25-year environment plan.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, this century, our nation was almost starved to death. Today, the largest proportion of our food comes by sea. Seventy-three years ago today, half a convoy full of foodstuffs was decimated, and at that stage we had 800 escorts. When I joined the Navy we had over 100 escorts; today we have 19. Does the Minister not agree that all parties should agree that this nation needs more escorts for the Navy?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord should be congratulated on weaving in his very strong support for the Navy and all that goes with it. It is important to know that 76% of indigenous-type foods come from the UK, as do 62% of all foods. Interestingly, that is by no means low in the context of the last 150 years, and in fact between the wars, the proportions were much lower. However, I am of course very keen on British production.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that if we are to have sustainable food production, we must ensure that our soils are in good heart? Can he say what he is doing to protect the soil and to improve its condition?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, new national standards for agricultural soils under cross-compliance were introduced only on 1 January this year. Clearly, it is essential, if we are to be even more productive, to ensure that our soil is in good heart and that we improve it wherever we can.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend may be aware that, globally, up to one-third of all food produced is wasted. Here in the UK, the equivalent of £60 a month is wasted by individual households. Will my noble friend tell the House what the Government are doing to bring down these figures, both across the supply chain and among retailers and individual householders?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this is a very serious issue, and the Government have been working successfully with industry under the Courtauld commitment to reduce food and packaging waste in the supply chain. It has been reduced by 7.4% since 2010, and clearly this is a continuing process. The amount of food we all waste is disgraceful.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I declare my interest as a farmer receiving EU funds. Sustainability could well be enhanced through local procurement along shorter supply chains. Does the Minister agree that this could increase the supply of fresh, healthy food, reduce farming’s carbon footprint, support UK agriculture and more closely connect the consumer to the producer? If this is the case, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to enhance the supply of local food?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this very much goes to the heart of public procurement. Only last Monday, the Secretary of State announced that Defra is reviewing buying habits across the public sector and working across Whitehall to improve transparency when government catering contracts are due for renewal. Following the launch of Dr Peter Bonfield’s plan for public procurement, there is much more to be done on this.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Lord Elton
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what has actually gone wrong with the Rural Payments Agency system and what is being done to put it right?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I know that my ministerial colleagues are working with the RPA on this. We are seeking to ensure that all payments are made promptly and we are working to that effect.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt but if we are doing it in turns, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister has done any studies of the effect on the strategies he describes of withdrawal from the European Union. If his department has done any, could he share them with the House? It is surely necessary that we should be in full possession of these facts.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I have not been a party to those discussions but regarding the UK food supply, it is clearly essential that we are able to have diverse global markets. We are increasing our exports around the world, both in Europe and outside.
Soma Oil & Gas: SFO Investigation
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Avebury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they intend to propose to the United Nations Security Council in the light of the Serious Fraud Office’s criminal investigation into Soma Oil and Gas Holdings, Soma Oil and Gas Exploration, Soma Management and others in relation to allegations of corruption in Somalia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the Serious Fraud Office’s investigation into Soma Oil & Gas is an ongoing, independent investigation. It would not be appropriate to comment at this stage, nor to take any action on the basis of it. We are advising the federal Government of Somalia of the importance of establishing an effective legal and regulatory framework before signing oil or gas contracts, due to the high risks of corruption and conflict associated with the sector.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, Soma has contracts with the Government of Somalia giving it rights over 60,000 square kilometres of the continental shelf and creaming off up to 90% of the state’s oil revenues. Are the Government concerned that Soma paid civil servants advising on the deal a total of $360,000 and the so-called independent legal adviser another $500,000? When is the relevant Security Council committee due to consider the report on these payments, submitted to it on 3 August by the Somalia and Eritrea monitoring group?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, on the first question, I perhaps did not make it clear enough in my first Answer that this matter is being investigated by the SFO, and investigated as the result of a leaked confidential document. In light of both those circumstances, it is not the practice of any Government to comment on such matters. On the noble Lord’s second question, I understand that the United Nations will discuss these matters again shortly.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we should note that all the companies concerned have strenuously denied any allegations of wrongdoing, and that the Question perhaps denies the central tenet of English justice—which is that a person is innocent until proved guilty?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is not for me to comment on what others have said. The Government will await the outcome of an investigation before commenting.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, following his recent visit to the Cayman Islands, Grant Shapps, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, suggested that the Government may be weakening their position on corporate transparency in the overseas territories. Can the noble Baroness state that the Government will firmly encourage the overseas territories to ensure that central registers of beneficial ownership are produced for the companies based in those territories?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I am not exactly an aficionado of cricket but even I can recognise a wide. In the spirit of co-operation, I will say that what we are doing with regard to Somalia, which is not an overseas territory, is to encourage responsible investment. We are strongly urging the Somali Government to ensure that any resulting investment and benefit from it is shared by the whole country. The benefit is clearly needed to reduce poverty there.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister back to her place and wish her a speedy recovery. She is looking extremely well. I accept what she says about not commenting on this specific issue, but will she assure the House that at the end of this process, any lessons to be learned are shared with the Department for International Development?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord makes a perfect point. In practice, the person who briefed me today was previously with DfID and has given me the assurance that these matters are discussed. We need to learn the lessons from any such circumstance; clearly, we share that around Whitehall. However, the next time I go on a military helicopter, I will get out of it a little better than I did this last time.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
While Somalia is struggling with the prospect of new-found oil wealth, al-Shabaab terrorists are murdering citizens and may massacre AU peacekeepers with impunity and almost at will. What is the Government’s response to the grave concerns over AMISOM and Somalia’s forces’ operational capabilities, with a lack of effective co-ordination and shared command structures and, crucially, a lack of air power? What steps are the Government taking within the UN Security Council to support Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s declared ambition to reform financial governance of the national security sector, building a more integrated, accountable and transparent sector, subject to rigorous oversight?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord raises the serious matter of how al-Shabaab may be defeated in the area and the role of AMISOM. We support the counter-al-Shabaab effort by funding, advice and support to AMISOM command, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia, UNSOM, and the EU training mission. It is essential that we continue to do all we can with regard to skilling and supporting those military efforts. Somalia can have a successful future, but first it needs to overcome its security problems and encourage proper investment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, setting aside the activities of individual oil exploration companies, can the Minister comment on the weight that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attaches to the call by the United Nations last year for a moratorium to be imposed on any further exploration by any oil companies in Somalia because of the risks which it poses to a fragile state, with competing groups vying for gains to be made from any such exploration?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord rightly draws attention to the fragility of states in those circumstances. We have strongly encouraged the federal Government and the emerging federal states to reach agreement on resource control and revenue sharing, and indeed to develop a legal framework which both supports that agreement and reflects best practice, before signing oil and gas deals. When it comes to the crunch, it is up to the sovereign country whether it signs those deals.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, with regard to the problem of corruption in Somalia and the associated problem of poverty, would not better progress be made towards the alleviation of poverty in Somalia—and, indeed, in other countries in the region, providing the better future for those countries that she and all of us wish for—if there were more rapid development of genetically modified crops? Is a more positive approach to GM crops in the European Union one of the reforms that Her Majesty’s Government are seeking?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My goodness, I think I am going even beyond my initial cricketing analogy. However, the noble Lord comes to a key issue, which is that the role of this country overseas has been to ensure stability and security in other states. The way that we work together and with our European colleagues is important. The Prime Minister’s golden thread is the way to go.
Tax Credits: Impact of Cuts
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Government are placing more emphasis on support to families on low incomes by increasing the personal allowance and introducing the new national living wage, rather than on topping up low wages through tax credits. Taking the welfare changes in the Budget together, with the record increases in the income tax personal allowance and the introduction of the national living wage, eight out of 10 working households will be better off in 2017-18.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that 3 million of the poorest families will be £1,000 worse off and that the increase in the minimum wage will simply not offset the cut in tax credits? To put it another way, is it not true that 5 million of Britain’s poorest children will lose an average of £750 each?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the trouble with this subject is that we could sit swapping statistics all day long. The evidence for children in poverty is clear that work is the best way for families to stay out of poverty. Children in workless families are nearly three times as likely to be in poverty. So we are increasing pay and raising the personal allowance so that families keep more of what they earn. Work and education are what matters, so we are extending free entitlement to childcare to 30 hours for working parents of three and four year-olds.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, research by the Centre for Policy Studies showed that, by 2012, more than half the families in this country were net takers from, rather than contributors to, the state. Would my noble friend agree that that situation is both unhealthy and unsustainable, and that changes in tax credits are just a step towards redressing the balance?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this is a strategic change in how we deal with welfare in this country. It is worth bearing in mind the problem: we produce 4% of the world’s GDP and 7% of the welfare payments, and nine out of 10 families were on tax credits. I completely agree with my noble friend that we want to increase people’s pay and lower the amount of tax they pay so that all families benefit in this country.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, despite the Minister’s disdain for statistics, he will be aware of the Institute for Fiscal Studies report last week that demonstrated that, among the 8.4 million working-age households currently eligible for benefits and tax credits but containing someone in work, the average loss from the cuts to benefits and tax credits is £750 per year. Among this same group, the average gain from the new minimum wage is estimated at only £200 per year. Does he accept that statistic?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I assure the House that I do not have any disdain for statistics. In fact, I have an enormous pack full of statistics that I have tried to learn. The problem with the IFS study is that the £12.5 billion of net cuts to benefits and tax credits and the estimated £4 billion increase in wages do not compare like with like for working families, because the reduction in benefits includes cuts to those families out of work.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with the fact that wages have risen faster in the past six months than since before 2007? Has that anything to do with the tax credit reforms?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I did not know that they had risen that fast. The former Chancellor, Alistair Darling, said that tax credits were never intended to subsidise lower wages. However, the current Chancellor has been very careful not to claim that tax credits have depressed wages. The fact is that we want to increase people’s wages. We introduced the national living wage and we want people to keep more of what they earn, rather than subsidising people through the benefits system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, despite his statistics, the majority of children in poverty have parents in work? It is therefore not true to say that work is the best route out of poverty unless that pay is topped up by tax credits. Otherwise, a single person and a family get the same wage. Tax credits lift children out of poverty. Can we therefore hope that the Minister will take that information back to the Treasury so that, when we face the battle over welfare reform cuts, alleviating child poverty is at the heart of this House’s attack on poverty?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Baroness is well respected for her mastery of the detail in this reform. We will address child poverty comprehensively in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be involved in that. We still think that work is the best route out of poverty. The number of children growing up in workless families is at a record low, down by 390,000 in the last Parliament. We are particularly trying to help those on the lowest incomes. Families will still be able to earn up to £3,850 before the awards are taken away.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, bearing in mind that two-thirds of children who live in poverty are in in-work families, how will the Government monitor the impact of the proposed changes? In particular, will they review the exclusion of income-based measures from the suite of life chances indicators being brought in?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The right reverend Prelate is correct to focus on these statistics and forecasting child poverty is very difficult. The IFS, for example, forecast in 2011 that there would be 2.8 million children in relative poverty and the actual figure was more than half a million less. We have considered the impact of the policy changes on children in poverty carefully in the summer Budget and we will continue to do so.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, just saying something over and over again does not, sadly, make it true. If the Minister is mostly concerned about children in working families, will he look please at the independent academic research for the Resolution Foundation, which found that, as a result of the Budget changes, most working families would be net losers? They may gain some income, but they are going to be worse off as a result of cuts in tax credits. How does that help tackle child poverty?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I do not agree with that. Eight out of 10 working families with children will be better off when you take into account the tax credit changes, the national living wage and the increase in the personal allowance.
Care: Costs Cap
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on patients, residents of care homes and their families and carers, of the decision to postpone the introduction of the cap on care costs from April 2016 until April 2020.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, the decision to delay implementation of the cap on care costs followed careful consideration of feedback from stakeholders, and it was felt that April 2016 was not the right time to implement these significant and expensive reforms. I stress that we remain committed to these important reforms, which offer financial protection and peace of mind. We have had to make hard choices, balancing the benefits of the cap against the need to focus on supporting the system that supports our most vulnerable.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. The Government’s election manifesto said that capping the amount patients can be charged for residential care from 2016 would give,
“everyone the peace of mind that they will get the care they need and that they will be protected from unlimited costs if they develop very serious care needs—such as dementia”.
The assessment of one of the key stakeholders, the Alzheimer’s Society, is that the delay until 2020 will cause unacceptable costs to continue to be borne by people with dementia in their families. These are people particularly affected by the cost divide between social care and NHS continuing care. What actions will the Government be taking in the lifetime of this Parliament to meet their commitment to this key group?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
This is a very important group at a most vulnerable time in their lives. The Government remain fully committed to introducing the cap on social care costs and helping people to cope with the potentially high costs of social care. It is not cancelled and will be brought in by 2020, but until then means-tested financial support remains available to those who cannot afford to pay for care to meet their eligible needs. Where a person can afford to pay for their care, we are clear they should not be forced to sell their home during their lifetime to do so. Since April this year, deferred payments have been available across England for people with less than £23,250 in liquid assets who might otherwise face that risk. By entering into a deferred payment agreement, a person can defer or delay paying the costs of their care and support until later, including out of their estate if they choose.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that for many families, the postponement of the cap on care costs is seen as a betrayal that is adding to their disillusionment about the persistent underfunding of social care? Surely the Government must understand that families who look after people—for example, someone with Alzheimer’s—cannot go on taking these responsibilities if promises are broken and if the support they need is either non-existent or too expensive. Will this problem not exacerbate the Government’s existing problem with delayed discharges if families are in future less willing to take on caring, and is the Minister concerned about the delayed discharges issue?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
This is indeed a concern, but I must emphasise that this delay is not a decision that has been taken lightly. A letter from the Local Government Association dated 1 July was clear that we need to think carefully about all the options, including postponing new initiatives. Therefore, we will make further announcements and they will follow in due course. Furthermore, we will continue with other efforts to support social care, in particular through the better care fund, which will drive the integration of social care and the NHS.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, when the care cap was postponed, the duty on local authorities to assess and meet the eligible care needs of self-funders was also postponed. There are about 460,000 of them. Last April, the department sent a letter to local authorities advising them on how to prepare for assessing self-funders. They have been given £146 million to carry out early assessments starting this October, which will cover about 50% of those self-funders. As the postponement is now planned, will the Minister tell us whether this money has been handed over and what will happen to self-funders who will now remain outside local care eligibility assessment and the advice system for another five years?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
Indeed, £146 million was allocated to support local authorities to prepare for implementation of the cap in April next year. It is likely that money spent to date on preparing for the reforms will have wider benefits in terms of improving local authorities’ systems and their understanding of their self-funding population. This is important because local authorities have a number of population-wide duties under the Care Act 2014, for example, the duty to provide information and advice services to facilitate a vibrant and diverse—
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
It is not too long. It is difficult to answer the question properly without saying something and this is very important. We are going to support high-quality care for the benefit of the whole local population.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston)
My Lords, we have not heard from the Liberal Democrats. It is their turn.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, as questioners have illustrated to your Lordships’ House, we face a perfect storm with health and social care. There was cross-party agreement in advance of the 2010 election that the cap was vital. We have delayed discharges and local authorities facing a real crisis. Will the Government take action in the next few weeks to remedy this problem, of which the cap is an important part?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
As I said, means-tested financial support remains available for those who cannot afford to pay for care to meet their eligible needs, but the introduction of the cap on care costs system will be the biggest reform to how care is paid for since 1948 and we must ensure that the new system works from day one. Local authorities and partners have consistently warned us of the risks of implementing this too quickly. We will therefore not be complacent and will work hard to make sure that there is additional time to ensure that everyone is ready to introduce the new system and that people can understand what it will mean for them.
Business of the House
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That Standing Order 40(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 13 October to enable the second reading of the European Union Referendum Bill to be taken before oral questions.
Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That this House approves the nomination of Lord Janvrin and the Marquess of Lothian as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee is an extremely important committee and is made up of Members of both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that it is funded by both Houses of Parliament, yet this House, which I think contributes a very significant proportion of the funding—it would be helpful if the Lord Privy Seal told us what proportion it funds—has only two of the committee’s members. Will the noble Baroness explain the rationale for that? Will she tell us what recommendations or representations she made to the Prime Minister about the Lords representation on this important committee?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to clarify the position a little more. I understand that the Government intended that the costs should be shared between the two Houses but, because the Government could not find accommodation in the Commons or the Lords for the ISC to sit, it was decided not to go ahead with that arrangement, and now the Government themselves fund the committee’s expenditure. Following upon the original recommendation, though, we were told that serious discussions were going on about the need to increase the Lords representation, perhaps to four members but at least to three. What has happened to those discussions? If they have been derailed, could they now be put back on the agenda?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, we have had very little notice of this Motion. We should take some time to discuss it because, particularly now, this is a matter of great importance. Until 2010 the House of Lords had only one representative on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and in the four years until 2010 I was that Member. Some of us felt that that one Member was not enough. We lobbied hard to ensure that the number of Members from the Lords should be increased, at least to two, to ensure that there was an opposition Member as well as a government Member on the committee, and that was agreed. That is why we were very surprised in 2010 when the then Leader of the House moved that the representatives should be the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler—with no disrespect to either of them. We accepted that and did not create a fuss on that occasion because we expected that account would be taken of the need to have an opposition representative the next time this matter was considered.
That is why I am very surprised that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Government, has come forward again not with an opposition Member but with another Cross-Bencher. With no disrespect to either the noble Marquess, whom I have known for many years, or the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, who served with distinction as secretary to Her Majesty the Queen for a number of years, neither of them could be said to be the most radical, probing person on this issue. Given recent events, the Intelligence and Security Committee is now under intense public, political and media scrutiny, and that is not going to decrease. That is why I think—with no disrespect, as I say, to either the noble Lord or the noble Marquess—that this matter should be taken away and considered again.
As I understand it, there has been no proper consideration with either of the opposition parties— the Liberal Democrats or ourselves—and now the Government have come forward with two names. With respect to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, she—and indeed the Government, the Chief Whip, whom I know very well, and the whole Conservative Party—would gain a great deal if they accepted that this was a genuine and sincere matter and had another look at it. I hope she will agree to take it away and look at it again.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Following the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, surely it is very important that these appointments be hurried through as quickly as possible, because if there is any delay the new leader of the Labour Party will have a great input into who stands on that committee.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, it is because we on these Benches take the security of the nation so seriously that these points have been raised by Labour Members today.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is right to say that until the beginning of the previous Parliament in 2010 there was only one Member of your Lordships’ House on the Intelligence and Security Committee. It was David Cameron, as Prime Minister, who thought at the start of the previous Parliament that it was right to extend that to two Members of your Lordships’ House.
When it comes to the breakdown of the ISC’s membership, it is worth me making two points to noble Lords. The first is that the ISC is not a Joint Committee of both Houses in the conventional sense; it is established by statute. It has nine places on it. As is customary, the Prime Minister consulted the Leader of the Opposition in the summer and—again, as is customary—it was the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition who decided how she, as acting leader, wished to allocate the three places that had been provided for the main opposition party.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish. The Leader of the Opposition has decided who will fill the three places that will represent the Labour Party on the committee, and they will be Members of the other place.
We feel it is right to follow the custom that has been in place for a long time, whereby one Member from the governing party in this House and one Member from the independent Cross Benches are on the committee. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, responded to the Prime Minister’s invitation and accepted his nomination, and I believe that the noble Lord, along with my noble friend Lord Lothian, will do an exceptional job representing this House on the very important Intelligence and Security Committee.
In response to the points raised about funding and accommodation, I do not have to hand information on the respective contribution that the two Houses make to funding, but I will be very happy to provide a letter in reply to that question and place it in the Library. However, I assure all noble Lords that no matter, whether it is about funding or about accommodation, has played any part whatever in the important nominations that the Prime Minister has made. I know full well that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, and my noble friend Lord Lothian will do an exceptional job and that they will take very seriously the responsibilities of sitting on this important committee.
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Conduct of charities: regulation of fundraising
(1) All charities raising funds of over £1 million per year must be members of the Fundraising Standards Board and abide by the Code of Fundraising Practice.
(2) In section 64A of the Charities Act 1992, as inserted by section 69 of the Charities Act 2006 (reserve power to control fund-raising by charitable institutions)—
(a) in the title omit “Reserve”;(b) in subsection (1) for “may” substitute “must”.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we come to the Third Reading of the charities Bill. I will also speak effectively to Amendment 2, which is clearly related to Amendment 1. Amendment 1 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Watson, and it deals with an issue which is as yet unresolved—namely, the appropriate way of regulating fundraising by charities from individual donors.
By way of background, although chugging and cold calling have long been issues of frequent complaint, it was the very sad case of the death of Olive Cooke, herself a lifelong donor and a volunteer poppy seller, which brought to light the unacceptable behaviour of a number of the big fundraising charities and the inadequacy of the current scheme of self-regulation. Although it was we who first raised the issue here, since then there has been widespread acceptance by the Government, the charities and even the so-called regulatory bodies—the code-setting institute and the Fundraising Standards Board—as well as by the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is carrying out its own inquiry, that the self-regulatory system failed. It failed to maintain appropriate standards, it let down donors and let down the wider public—which brings us to today.
When similar, indeed identical, amendments were tabled on Report, following discussion in Committee, the Government accepted the need for change and tabled amendments of their own. However, at that time, they were not fully convinced of our two proposals—first, that membership of the current voluntary membership body, the FRSB, and adherence to the appropriate code should be mandatory; and, secondly, that the Charity Commission’s reserve powers on fundraising should be activated.
However, given that the Government accepted that we had not reached a final position on this and that further amendments might be required, the Government asked Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the NCVO, to chair a group, which includes the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I believe that Salts Mills in Saltaire was the venue for some of the wonderful photography in the BBC’s “An Inspector Calls”, broadcast last night. The committee also comprises the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, and was set up to consider whether further change might be needed and to report back to the Government. Regrettably, we find ourselves in the slightly odd position of having Third Reading this afternoon, just days before that committee is to report. This is, therefore, very much work in progress, and we will be sending the Bill to the other place a bit unfinished.
I know that the Minister is not behind this timetabling. I think, like me, that he would like to have this issue properly debated and decided upon here, because I know that he is genuine in wanting a robust system in place. If I was suspicious—and I never am—I would think that the Government were wanting to seize the initiative themselves, make a good announcement from the platform at the Tory party conference and take the credit. If so, I will cheer them on, given that we are not seeking change in order to get the credit but to make sure that we have the right solution.
However, it is clear that we do not yet know the best way forward, although I think that everyone accepts, including the big charities and the new chair of the Fundraising Standards Board, who appeared before Bernard Jenkin’s committee, that membership of the board must become compulsory and that the board, which should be independent of the charities it regulates, must in some way have more power than naming and shaming, which is open to it now. There is also general agreement that the weak and unsatisfactory fundraisers’ code must be beefed up. Furthermore, it seems obvious that such powers are bound to entail some role for the Charity Commission, either via a portal, whereby the standards board can report misbehaviour to the commission for subsequent investigation and statutory action, or via such a board being commissioned, licensed or authorised by the Charity Commission, such that there is a degree of statutory oversight to ensure independence and the board would have to satisfy the commission that the code and its procedures were robust and fit for purpose, and will work independently of its regulated community.
There is no doubt that the key players accept the thrust of this, although we regret that some of the charities and perhaps the Institute of Fundraising itself have not quite accepted the independence that a new system requires. Their letter to the Sunday Times was outwith any discussion with the Charity Commission or ourselves, which suggests that they want to hold on to a self-regulatory model, which has failed the public.
We are not wedded to any particular model, provided that it is independent and effective in order to enable complaints to be heard, and drives up standards. We are clear that such changes need to happen. We are happy to await the recommendation of the Etherington committee, albeit we wish that the timetable was different. The amendment therefore is to make it clear that the Bill as its stands, and as it will go to the Commons, is not yet adequate. The amendment is to allow the House also to hear from the Government how far their thinking has progressed over the summer. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I should admit that I spent the weekend in Yorkshire, where, to my surprise, my neighbours do not hate people outside Yorkshire and nor do they in fact hate each other. We had a very pleasant weekend. I should also admit that, some months ago, I enjoyed watching the filming of that part of “An Inspector Calls” in our very beautiful village.
We are concerned here with the future of charities. I have found it very constructive to be involved in the thorough Committee and Report stages that we have had on this important Bill. I think we all recognise that as government spending shrinks in the next three or four years, charities will have to play a more important part in looking after a range of good causes and disadvantaged people across our country. That means that the importance we attach to the regulation of charities—the subject of this amendment—is something that requires continuing attention. It also requires active support for philanthropy, and I trust that the Government will pay active attention to encouraging visible philanthropy. I was glad to see the Financial Times highlighting this last week.
Having been involved in the committee to which the noble Baroness referred, which will present its report to the Government shortly, I am slightly more sceptical about standards across the whole universe of charities than I was before. Clearly, there is need for tighter and more visible regulation. A number of charitable trustees have not understood how active and responsible their role should be, and these matters need to be addressed.
There is a continuing role for this House in providing oversight to the charitable sector. Perhaps we should consider, in future years, whether a sessional committee of this House might look at some aspects of the charitable sector. As we saw in Committee and on Report, there is some very valuable expertise in this House.
I think that all of us here accept that charities are not comparable to commercial enterprises, as I and others have heard it suggested on one or two occasions. Charities have a privileged status both in legal and taxation terms. The standards of behaviour that we rightly expect of them reflect that privileged status. These high standards should apply to the whole diverse field of charities: to the development charities, as well as to private schools; to libertarian think tanks, as well as to medical charities. We are entitled to expect that their trustees enforce that.
As a backstop, we need to consider what level of regulation is enforced and implemented and how that regulation is organised. We will indeed be reporting on that. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness when she says that the role of the Charity Commission also needs to be re-examined as a backstop to whatever formal regulation the sector itself provides.
Having said that, I trust that when our report is presented there will be an opportunity to debate it, and certainly, when the Bill comes back from the Commons, there will be another opportunity to make sure that we have moved matters forward. I merely emphasise again that the charity sector is extremely important to our society and to aspects of our economy. It deserves, therefore, to be fully regulated and as transparent as possible.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests in charities as listed in the register of interests. I was going to declare my interest in the fundraising regulation review panel, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for doing it for me.
As she says, we are not yet in a position to present our report. On 10 July, Minister Rob Wilson rang me to ask us to start this report. That was an interesting call because, on 9 July, the Prime Minister had thanked me for accepting. But it shows that it is being taken seriously at a very high level. We will have an appropriate moment to thank Sir Stuart Etherington and Elizabeth Chamberlain of NCVO and Susann Hering from the Cabinet Office for the report, which we hope will be published extremely soon. If it is to be published at the Conservative Party conference—I do not think that is the plan—I will personally welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and invite her to sit with me and listen to every word. I hope there will be opportunity for further debate in this House when amendments come back here.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, mindful of the rules at Third Reading, I will say that I have great sympathy with my noble friend’s amendment but share her concern about the sad accident of timing that has befallen us as far as this Bill is concerned. Like her, I would have felt a lot better if the report of which I have been privileged to be part could have been received, with its recommendations understood, so that the Bill could have been sent to the Commons complete and with the work done. Be that as it may, I hope that when the report comes out Members will be satisfied with its recommendations.
In her introduction, my noble friend said that she was looking forward to seeing how the Government’s thinking had changed over the summer. What has been very striking is how the thinking of charities, and perhaps particularly of some charities’ trustees, has been influenced over the summer by focus on the negative aspects of fundraising. If they did not get it before, many of them get it now—and not before time. I hope that the report will be influential and welcomed and will make not only charity staff and chief executives but trustees much more mindful of their responsibilities in regulating their fundraising activities. Too many trustees have been content to take the money without being too fussy about how that fundraising has been achieved.
Wearing another hat, I chair the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care. We have a concept of right-touch—not light-touch—regulation. We say that, amongst other things, right-touch regulation should be proportionate, consistent, transparent and accountable. I hope we can achieve that with charitable fundraising and, most of all, that in the future it will be far more effective.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in the context of the regulation of funding and the regulatory framework for charities, I have a brief question for my noble friend of which I have given him notice. On Report, my noble friend gave a number of commitments to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, myself and the whole House on the question of public benefit. A lot of work has been done on this during the summer. He said that the Charity Commission would issue new guidance on public benefit and running a charity, that it would do further work on public benefit reporting guidance, that the ISC was going to provide guidance, that the Charity Commission would undertake a 12-month research programme and the ISC would launch a website this autumn. All of that would then be subject to a debate a year on, when the House could see how much progress was being made.
It is appropriate to mention to the House that a lot of work has been done. I could not be more grateful personally, and all those interested in the subject will also be grateful to the ISC and the Charity Commission for a very good start. We hope that, as the Opposition Front Benchers made clear during the latter stages of the debate, the website will be proactive regarding the facilities and engagement with local communities and be a point of contact—an effective method of linking with their local communities schools with charitable status and outstanding facilities.
I am certain that noble Lords in all parts of the House will continue to push for change not just in the sports world but in the arts world, and for engagement between schools that are endowed with superb facilities, excellent teachers and coaches, and the wider community. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister took this opportunity to update the House on the work undertaken during the summer and join me in offering congratulations on the good start, although there is clearly a long road to travel before we achieve the sort of developments that are essential to meet the mood expressed in the House in a number of previous debates. We must ensure that we have the material necessary to have a full debate in a year’s time.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it has been a pretty miserable summer for the charitable sector and it has not been a great summer for the Charity Commission either. It is in the nature of being a charity to go through periods of being tested, and good charities come out the other side a lot stronger. One can but hope that that will happen as a result of what has transpired over the past few months.
I am not a member of this august committee—I never made it to the shortlist—but I had the great privilege of attending one of its sessions. It was really interesting—one of the most interesting breakfast discussions that I have had for a very long time. While it was absolutely true, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, said—he was also present on that occasion—that some people still did not quite get it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, a lot of people in the charitable world now absolutely understand that they cannot continue as before and that things must change.
I applaud the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as it is keeping the pressure up on the issue, but I think that it is premature in terms of process. What was most interesting over the summer was the number of people who wanted to chat to me about the ongoing issues. Time and again, people within the charitable sector talked not just about the severe economic pressures but their wish that that sector could be better than the commercial sector and better regulated than the private sector.
I hope that the report from Sir Stuart Etherington’s committee is hard hitting, not ambiguous in any way and issues a real challenge to charities. I am mindful that charities have to continue to raise funds and that people want to continue to donate to them. Although the reputation of individual charities has taken a battering over the summer, they are still among the most efficient and effective organisations tackling some of the biggest problems in our society.
The Charity Commission has not covered itself in glory this summer either, and I want to think long and hard about what responsibilities were given to it and the reserve powers to oversee fundraising. Charities know about the lives of vulnerable people much better than anybody else, and I want to give them the chance to come forward with a regulatory system that is better than the private sector’s.
I, too, add my congratulations to the Minister, who has conducted himself throughout our proceedings in the most exemplary way. He has been extremely good to work with and I thank him very much. In saying that, I do not want him to accept the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I ask him to ensure that, when the Bill returns from the Commons, we are given sufficient time, through the usual channels, to pay detailed attention to these matters.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests, which are declared in the register: I am vice-president of the RNIB and have had a long-standing involvement in the charity sector; and, most recently, I have been asked to chair a commission by ACEVO— the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations—on better charity regulation.
I have not taken a large part in the proceedings on this Bill because I felt that its provisions were pretty uncontroversial. Indeed, that has emerged from the debates as the Bill has gone through its various stages. It has been discussed in matters of detail but the proposals have been broadly—indeed, widely—welcomed. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for how he has conducted the debates on the Bill. He was kind enough to consult me at an early stage to take my views about the Bill. I appreciated that very much, and I appreciate how he has conducted the Bill from the point of view of the Government.
I was not planning to speak today at Third Reading but, listening to the debate, as I have been, I am prompted to make just one remark. It is perfectly true that charities have not had a very good summer, particularly on fundraising, but we have to be careful of tarring all charities with the same brush. I am sure that noble Lords have not intended to do that, but we need to be aware of it—I am sure that Sir Stuart Etherington’s committee will be. The charities sector reflects a good deal of diversity. It is important that we register the point that, as well as the bad practice that has been exposed, there is still quite a lot of good practice among charities. It is important that we retain a sense of perspective in that light.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Low, said what he did. I declare my interest as a former charity chief executive and having had a connection with the charity sector for many years; and as a regulator on four separate occasions, though not in the charity sector, I can speak on regulation with some insight.
There has been a bit of a witch-hunt this summer. I am not saying that charities are getting it absolutely right, but there has been a huge focus on those charities that, from time to time, were getting it wrong, and on the admitted gross inadequacies of the Fundraising Standards Board. I do not quibble that we need an independent and effective regulator, but I hope that we are not going to be dragooned by the witch-hunt that the Daily Mail has led in quite an extreme fashion, to the point where charity fundraisers are now being followed around in the streets, in public places and in meetings of charitable donors and beneficiaries, just in case something can be picked up that can be used by the newspaper.
We have also had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from some of the other players. The Information Commissioner is steadily redefining his position on data protection issues in charities, to the point where a charity now cannot phone a volunteer, who may have volunteered for that charity for many years, unless there is express permission in place that the charity may phone them. If they have signed up to the telephone preference scheme that would also prevent the charity from phoning.
We are in the position where some of the interpretation of the existing regulation is becoming incredibly counterproductive, to the point where my concern is that charities that are trying hard, that had good codes of practice, that have trustees who are interested and that enforce their rules with the agencies that work with them, are now being penalised. That makes their business not just of raising money, but of talking to their donors, who in many cases are also beneficiaries, more difficult.
I cannot support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter. The Fundraising Standards Board is so unfit for purpose that when the Government or the charitable sector make a decision following the Etherington review, I very seriously advise that they do not call it the Fundraising Standards Board, but that whatever new regulatory function comes forward is called some entirely new name. I would also be extremely nervous about enhancing the role of the Charity Commission in this area. I do not think, in the 45 years that I have been connected with charities, that I have ever seen a Charity Commission that feels more hostile to the sector that it undoubtedly is regulating, but which it is also there to promote and enhance. I believe that the Charity Commission needs to examine its soul on how it is currently behaving and how it has done for the last year.
I am sure that the Etherington review will talk a huge amount of sense. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, both have in-depth knowledge of what they are talking about and are people of huge stature. I hope that whatever emerges from the Etherington review can go forward on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis. I believe that charities are very willing to look at how the public can be reassured. However, we need to make sure that all these changes, and all the anxiety that has been evinced over the summer, do not result in our lurching to a position where charities incur considerable costs in ensuring compliance with a statutory regulatory regime. Right regulation may not be light regulation, and therefore may involve considerable compliance costs. The one thing we do want to make sure is that charities are able to carry out the huge amount of work that they do for the public good in the best, most effective and publicly acceptable way, and in a way that has least dead-weight regulatory cost, because that is in the interests of the beneficiaries we all serve.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council, I wish to add to the comments of my noble friend Lord Moynihan to underline the seriousness with which the council takes the obligations and undertakings that it has given during our debates, and to make clear that it looks forward to remaining in touch with those Members who take an interest in its affairs as it seeks to build up the not inconsiderable partnerships that it already has with state schools and local communities to the benefit of all three participating parties.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con)
My Lords, I have read the proceedings on the Bill in earlier sittings of your Lordships’ House. I was not able to be present because, as many noble Lords will know, I have responsibilities in Africa connected with many of the charities which fall into the categories we are discussing. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just said. The interactions between certain charities and the Charity Commission of late reflect a sad situation. I believe that Sir Stuart Etherington’s committee will give us very valuable advice. I realise that it cannot report before we finish our discussion on the Bill. However, it must be very clear that future regulation has to be very transparent because there have been too many occasions when certainly I have wondered at the meaning behind the work of certain charities. Therefore, we need to have clear guidance determining charities’ declarations of the management of their organisations. Many of them are now so large that they require much more financial supervision than they have at present. I am certain that the committee will respond on that basis.
I will say no more at present but I, too, emphasise that it is important to have a further debate in the months ahead when the Bill comes back from another place. I very much hope that I can arrange to be here rather than in Africa when that happens.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have just spoken and those who said some very kind words about me. I would like to put on record my thanks, and those of the Government, for the significant contribution to the fundraising review that my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, have made, as well as our thanks to Sir Stuart Etherington himself. They have given up their time and expertise over the summer to help develop a new approach to tackling the problems of fundraising that have been exposed in the media in recent months.
I fully accept that, as a number of noble Lords have said, the timing of the debate today is somewhat unfortunate, given that Sir Stuart is not due to report until later this month. However, as I am sure your Lordships understand, this was agreed through the usual channels and needs to fit in with the competing demands of other parliamentary business.
My honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Civil Society, Rob Wilson, has engaged over the summer with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and other noble Lords who have been supporting Sir Stuart Etherington’s review. He has committed to continue that engagement when he pilots the Bill through the other place. I am very keen that your Lordships continue to debate and discuss these issues while the Bill is in the other place. My door is open to anyone who has been unable to express views as the Bill progressed up to this point or who has thoughts on the Etherington review’s findings when they are published. We will also, of course, have an opportunity for further debate in this House on any amendments that may be made to the Bill. I would entirely support such measures, as I know that this House has an immense amount of expertise on the matters that we are discussing.
Before responding to the points raised in this afternoon’s debate, and looking at the specifics of the amendment, it is worth reminding ourselves, as a number of speakers have, that the vast majority of charity fundraising is undertaken responsibly. The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Young, made that point, and I entirely agree. It is the actions of a minority of charities, albeit high-profile ones, and in relation to particular fundraising methods, that have damaged public trust and confidence. Furthermore, charities need to ask the public for donations in order to carry out their vital work. In addressing the poor fundraising practices of the few, it is important to keep those points in mind and not to overburden the majority of charities, particularly small charities, whose fundraising activities are not at fault. As I said before while debating other points relevant to the Bill, it is absolutely critical that we get this balance right and keep a sense of proportion in what we may do.
One point on which I think there is now broad agreement is that the current system is too complex and has failed to deliver the standards that the public and Parliament expect. I owe a nod to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who got this spot on in his 2012 charity law review when he said:
“Potential donors are currently faced with a confused landscape, with unnecessary duplication or division of functions … To date the sector has tended to dance around these issues”.
It would appear that we are only now catching up with him. The current system has to change if we are to meet one of the overriding objectives of the Bill: to maintain and strengthen public trust and confidence in charities. The exam question posed to Sir Stuart Etherington and his review earlier this summer was: what should those changes be?
We have acted with the amendments to the Bill on Report, which will require charity trustees to take proper responsibility for their charity’s fundraising and, in larger charities, to be more transparent and accountable about their fundraising activities in their annual reports. These changes will help, but Sir Stuart’s review will provide the blueprint for the future of self-regulation.
I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of Sir Stuart’s fundraising review—and if the noble Baroness thinks that it is going to be published at the Conservative Party conference, I will make sure that I accompany her there. I know that several of the largest charities have already committed to making changes and supporting the recommendations of the fundraising review. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, this change of heart is about time, too. It is to be welcomed, as the whole charity fundraising sector will need to get behind the recommendations of the review and swiftly implement the necessary changes. As I said on Report, the response of sector leaders to Sir Stuart’s recommendations will in part answer the question of whether fundraisers and the charity trustees who oversee them accept the need for and fully embrace change.
We take the view that charities should have the opportunity to redeem themselves and that they are capable of putting their own house in order and making self-regulation work so as to restore and protect the public trust and confidence on which they depend, as well as to show, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, that they are fulfilling the responsibilities that charitable status confers.
Some have suggested that we should legislate to make charities submit to self-regulation. That would effectively be statutory regulation, not self-regulation. We will need to see what Sir Stuart recommends, but we do not want to legislate for a new bureaucracy. In particular, we do not want to entangle with red tape the vast majority of small charities which have not had anything to do with the unacceptable practices reported in the media. Our preference therefore remains self-regulation, not a government-regulated solution.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, that turned out to be a more educative and perhaps more interesting debate than I had hoped. I join the Minister in thanking everyone who has contributed. I apologise to the House that I forgot at the beginning to declare that I, too, am a trustee of a couple of charitable trusts.
I start with the same emphasis made by the noble Lord, Lord Low, my noble friend Lady Young and others on not tarring all charities with the same brush, and on the incredible importance of charitable work. I think that I have spent more of my professional life running charities than anything else, so I am absolutely aware of that. I will make a couple of comments because the follow-on is that, when I was able to raise funds, it was very much because of the public’s good will and trust, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. They trusted not only that we would use their money effectively but that we had the expertise and specialism to look after the sort of clients that we had. We, as the charitable sector, must never lose that.
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said that she thought that charities’ thinking had changed over the summer, and if ever your Lordships’ House helped in that, it should take some credit for it. I am perhaps not thinking that they have all got there completely. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said that she wanted the Etherington report to be hard-hitting. I do not really know the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, so well but I know the other two Peers and I certainly know Sir Stuart, and I think that I could trust those four not to pull their punches.
I hope that what the Government said is not pre-empting that by appearing to rule out any statutory response. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, used the word “backstop”, which is close to what I was suggesting. My judgment is that a pure self-regulating system will no longer be acceptable. I absolutely concur with my noble friend Lady Young that the letters FRSB should not be used: it will not be a fundraising standards board, whatever it is. I also doubt whether it will continue as voluntary. When he gave evidence in front of Bernard Jenkin, its new chair, Andrew Hind, seemed to rule out the possibility of it remaining completely voluntary. If we can find something that is a backstop rather than a red-tape regulation, that may be the right way forward. As I said in introducing the amendment, it was to give us the opportunity for this debate; we have an open mind on what is the correct way forward.
I make only one other point, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned, which concerns the role of trustees. The Independent Schools Council seems to have grasped it. I hope that the trustees—if they are called that—of the various schools take that message on board as well and look proactively at what might be done with the state system. When I met the Charity Commission recently, it said that in its research it was going to ask to what extent fee-paying schools ask the local community, “What would be best for you?”, so that it is not just paternalistic giving but real response to needs.
Having said that, before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and we send this slightly unfinished Bill down the corridor, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, who as everyone said, has really played a blinder over all this. It has been a real pleasure to work with him on the Bill. We must also thank the Minister at the other end, who has also met us and been very responsive. I also thank the Bill team, who, as ever, we have worked rather hard, and my noble friend Lord Watson, who joined me on the Front Bench for the first time, I think, and has done an awful lot of the heavy lifting on the Bill. With those thanks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Energy Bill [HL]
(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have also put my name to this proposal, therefore I will speak on it on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as well as myself.
We come to one of the most important parts of the Bill, which concerns wind power. Although I fully accept there were strong arguments against onshore wind in the Conservative manifesto, that is very regrettable and it is important to have consistency in government policy. One element of that manifesto was that climate change measures and renewables should be at least cost. As I pointed out to the House before, onshore wind costs some £65 per tonne of CO2 saved whereas with offshore—still one of the Government’s favourites; I have no criticism of that—the cost per tonne of CO2 displaced is almost double that at £121. In terms of financial support, onshore wind cost on a ROC basis is about £40 per megawatt hour and offshore is more than double that at some £85. That puts into context this part of the Bill and the two clauses that we start to consider here.
The irony is that in many ways I would welcome this clause because it repatriates planning decisions around certain energy generators—onshore wind above 50 megawatts—back to what many of us see as the democratic base of decision-making, which is local planning. In some ways, that is quite a positive thing. However, the inconsistency and the agenda behind it concern me. It seems that the Government are in favour of this reallocation or repatriation because they want to put greater obstacles in the way of this far more cost-effective and efficient form of energy: onshore wind. Yet in other areas of energy policy, not least fracking—I am not against fracking in principle—the Government try to move things in exactly the opposite direction. Due to the frustrations felt with Lancashire County Council, we have the irony of the Government trying to move decision-making up to the Secretary of State whereas onshore wind, which seems bad in terms of Tory ideology, is moving the other way and back to local authorities. That inconsistency concerns me.
My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness will doubtless come to this on the next clause, but it also means that the outside world, whether that is financial institutions within the UK or worldwide, starts to look at British Government decision-making as being very inconsistent and changeable, in a way that is not necessarily financially correct but comes from a bounce and ricochet of policies. It seems that we have a confusion and inconsistencies in UK energy policy that will deter investment. I know that that will be a continuing theme this afternoon.
I have questions to ask the Minister. First, paragraph 130 on page 18 of the Explanatory Notes says:
“The Government currently expects that applications which have already been made under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 but not yet decided when the Bill provision commences, will continue to be considered under that Act”.
However, I understand that we have no detail of how that will be done. Again, we have uncertainty in this area. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister on where we are in that.
Again on detail, the other thing I find difficult about this clause is that even if we accept that this level of planning should come down to local authorities, despite that inconsistency, I understand that it is also the Government’s intention that approvals for onshore wind should be given by primary planning authorities only if they are also in line with agreements on neighbourhood plan areas. Now, no one is a greater fan than I am of the neighbourhood planning brought into being by the coalition Government. That is a great move forward and has been successful in housing and other areas so far.
Perhaps I may have some clarity from the Minister. I know that large areas of England do not yet have neighbourhood plans; in fact, many planning authorities do not have local plans. I should like to understand the detail of how onshore wind farm developers, who can surmount all these other hurdles, deal with this area. Neighbourhood plans must not be in conflict with local plans, so what happens in areas that do not yet have neighbourhood plans? I know it is obviously a DCLG issue, but I would be very pleased if the Minister could write to me and tell me how many neighbourhood plans have been passed and what proportion of the English landscape that covers. Indeed, I would like to know the same for local plans, a number of which are waiting to be agreed by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on whether keeping this clause in the Bill is sensible. I share his views entirely about the vagaries of the local planning system. It is true to say—it would be good if the Minister could confirm it at some stage—that not only are there not many neighbourhood plans in existence, but some local authorities have not yet published local plans, far less had them accepted. This provision might be okay in places where they have thought about it, but so many have not and show no signs of doing so.
The National Planning Policy Framework only encourages local planning authorities to consider identifying suitable areas for renewable energy sources and as a result the links in the chain that could fail are rather long. A local authority might not have got to the stage where it had a local plan and therefore there cannot be neighbourhood plans, because they have got to be in a consistent process with the local plan, and there is only a vague nudge in the direction of considering whether suitable areas have been identified for renewable energy. It does not feel like a well-honed local set of circumstances for fostering that vital and, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out, cost-effective way of meeting some very stringent climate change targets and budgets. I have concerns about the removal of the Secretary of State’s consent in this respect.
It is rather strange that we are moving in one direction for fracking consents and in another for onshore wind consents. I simply make that remark without having any belief that there should be one without the other. I must confess that I need to meet my noble friend Lady Worthington to talk about some impacts of fracking other than simply energy generation, carbon reduction and cost.
There is one other issue in respect of the localisation of decision-making in terms of onshore wind, which is how we get some strategic perspective. It is going to be abominably difficult to meet our carbon targets, and we will need every tool in the toolkit to do so. In this clause, there is no mechanism for that happening on a scale larger than a neighbourhood or local plan, yet many of these decisions involving technologies other than onshore wind need to be part of the mix on a local and national basis for these decisions to be looked at on a more strategic basis at a higher level than the local planning authority.
I hope that the Minister will come back to us with answers to some of the questions we are raising about the advisability of removing the Secretary of State’s permission.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am waiting for my noble friend Lord Ridley to give his limpid views on the future of onshore wind and, indeed, on the role of onshore and offshore wind power in the tasks of reducing emissions worldwide and producing a balanced energy policy for the British people. No doubt he will enter into later debates on the next clause which will cover very much the same ground.
I admire the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his frank admission of the dilemma he faces. On the one hand, localism is the flavour of the month, the year and the time, and there is a great desire to move from central administration in every area of policy, certainly including energy, into a greater role for local people, local planning and local authorities, yet he is also worried about inconsistency and fears that in some way the onshore wind cause is being abandoned. I do not see that. If you look at the proposals and the argument in the impact assessments behind the Bill, it is perfectly clear that, first, onshore wind has had a fantastic run over recent years. Some would say it was possibly too big a run given the very considerable economic advantages it brought to many wealthy individuals, gigantic corporations and energy companies and to those who are benefiting in all sorts of other ways from the proceeds and the subsidies, which are, of course, paid for by the consumer. In many cases, we know it is the poor consumer, and it is certainly the competitive consumer in industry. It is clear that subsidies have created this great growth. There must be a limit, as has been set quite clearly by government, and it is going to be exceeded unless the brakes are put on. There is a limit in two senses: first, the sheer weight of subsidy required to maintain the industry until it can get its costs down. I will come to that in a moment because there are real problems in getting costs down.
Secondly, there is managing a balanced grid system which can absorb the intermittency of wind. Every country that has gone into this business in a big way—Denmark is a good example—has found enormous difficulties. That is one reason why Denmark wants to have an interconnector with Britain for electricity. Intermittently there will be no charge at all for the electricity it supplies to us because it is a danger to it and an advantage to us. Spain has found enormous difficulties in going too fast and beyond the limits of engineering and electronic management in organising its grid when the wind blows too hard or too regularly.
Thirdly, there is the intermittency problem, which we all face. One day we will get over it because the storage will come at lower costs and intermittency problems will be much reduced. In the mean time, though, intermittency requires back-up, and back-up requires gas. There are other devices but gas-generated electricity is the area where most people in Europe, certainly in this country, think the gap can be filled. Far from being inconsistent, then, it seems to me utterly consistent that at this point the contribution of onshore wind should be restrained in the ways that are proposed.
As for the emissions angle, we know that we are driven by the European requirements for renewable energy, the formidable target of 15% of our energy from renewable sources by, I think, 2020, and Europe’s target of 40% by 2030. It is quite clear from the present pattern that we are not going to meet that target, and that even if we were to double the onshore wind power we still would not get near it, even if we took into account merely the emissions that emerge from the production of energy. In fact, the emissions that emerge from our capital consumption of energy per head, and from all the vast imports that we suck into this country from countries with much lower standards with very high emission content, have not fallen very much at all; indeed, many would argue that they have increased greatly since 1990.
So the real problem is that the present policy is not actually working. Those of us who are concerned about climate change look at what is happening throughout Europe, notice the contrary tendencies in delivering emission reduction—much more coal burning and a failure of the heavy concentration of wind around the islands, like the one that we are living on—and ask whether we should not begin to think about an entirely new and different policy. I see no inconsistency at all. No doubt we will debate this a little further on in the afternoon in more depth and detail.
I worked very closely with my friends in the Liberal Democrats in the last Government and enjoyed doing so, but I find their stance on this almost impossible to understand. They seem to be favouring a system that does not do much for emissions, distributes money in massive ways from the poor to the rich and apparently produces all kinds of tax advantages that are going to be exploited. This is one irony of the situation: even with this restraint, it looks to me as though we are going to have continuous investment in onshore wind, even without the subsidies, because of the big tax advantages that are built into the system. Should we not be looking at those before we take a position on the question of local powers and so on?
It is a puzzle to me that we do not look in a more balanced way at what is being done. It seems utterly consistent. I do not think that I want to be a supporter of anything that promotes further a system that is unfair to the poorest people and consumers, and which delivers considerable tax advantages to clever people and yet does not do very much at all for emission reduction. It seems to me to be a sad mixture, and it is about time that it was changed.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this clause stand part debate, and to noble Lords who have contributed to it. I shall make a few comments. As we enter the third day of Committee, I am grateful to the Minister for having agreed to extend the Committee for an extra day. I think that this has arisen because we felt—I have probably made myself fairly clear on this—that the handling of the Bill has been slightly suboptimal, and we are expecting more amendments to come to us before Report. We are very grateful that we now have an opportunity to discuss those in Committee before then.
Today we move on to Part 4, which it is fair to say is the more controversial aspect. People on both sides of the Committee may have different views about the benefits or disbenefits of particular technologies, but we must strive to ensure that we have a good policy and governance regime that will help investors not to waste their money. One of our concerns is that any manifesto, no matter how good the drafters, is prepared relatively hastily and usually without a great deal of thought for the detail. Yet here we are, just months after that manifesto was put into print, hastily enacting some of the statements in it and I think that we are still lacking some of the detail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the so-called extra day in Committee and, for the first time, I thank the noble Baroness for getting back to me. I hope she accepts that twice over the weekend I tried to contact her and left a message. It would have been good to hear from her that the situation is fine—only now am I am hearing for the first time that it is.
Baroness Worthington
I communicated through our Whips this morning that it was acceptable. They are in communication with the noble Lord’s Whips. Therefore, I have gone through the normal channels.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
We had corresponded directly earlier but I accept that the situation is fine. Technically it is not another day in Committee, which I believe is causing the clerks consternation; it is a day for recommital in the Moses Room, and I think that that is understood. I hope that noble Lords will accept that we have endeavoured to accommodate people’s wishes in relation to the subsidies that we will be looking at.
It is very good to see the noble Baroness still in her place. I suspect that she and I will be agreeing much more than she will be agreeing with her leader, and we will perhaps come to that later. We will come on to decarbonisation in relation to nuclear policy. It is important that we have a responsible Opposition because they are an alternative Government, so we will come on to that and it is absolutely right that we do.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister can tell us how that relates to Clause 59.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord has made a fair point but I am coming on to Clause 59 and will happily do so. Of course it has an effect on energy policy across the board.
I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate and I will seek to answer their points, which have properly been raised. The issue obviously affects the energy mix that helps us to reach our decarbonisation targets. I should say that there is no way that we will reach them if we do not have new nuclear, so my point certainly is relevant.
Clause 59 seeks to amend Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 by removing the obligation to obtain consent from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to construct, extend or operate an onshore wind farm in England or Wales. To be clear, this requirement relates to new wind farms with a capacity greater than 50 megawatts. Smaller wind farms, including those owned by the community, are already consented by the relevant local planning authority.
The change, alongside further proposals to make secondary legislation amending the Planning Act 2008 and the Electricity Act 1989, will have the combined effect of removing the requirement for planning consent to be obtained from the Secretary of State for the construction of new onshore wind farms. Instead, developers will need to apply for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, where the primary decision-maker is the local planning authority.
The Government were elected with a clear commitment to give local people the final say on whether to have a wind farm in their area. This should not have taken anyone by surprise. These changes help deliver just that, as was stated in our manifesto. This is important. The majority of the population do not live in the vicinity of a wind farm. For those who do, we have seen many examples of local community groups vigorously opposing wind farm developments because of local impacts relating to noise, amenity and visual changes. It is against that background that the proposal appeared in the manifesto. By transferring decisions to the local level, we are putting local communities in the driving seat. Onshore wind farms should get the go-ahead only when local people have said they want them, and where. That said, onshore wind will continue to be important to help us deliver our renewables targets. It will certainly not disappear and we anticipate that there will be new onshore wind farms—community wind farms and so on.
I turn to some of the specific points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned paragraph 130 of the memorandum. It remains the case that all electricity applications are caught by the policy. I believe that all existing Electricity Act 1989 applications have been decided, and the issue should therefore not arise. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and to the other noble Lords opposite. We will consider this issue soon when the Electricity Act order comes before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised the issue of planning authority and neighbourhood plans. There is a transitional arrangement for when a valid planning application for a wind energy development has already been submitted to a local planning authority and the development plan does not identify suitable sites. In such instances, local planning authorities can find the proposal acceptable if, following consultation, they are satisfied that it has addressed the planning impacts identified by local communities and therefore has their backing. This is set out in the ministerial Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in another place, and I will make sure that it is circulated to noble Lords so that they are aware of it. That should cover the point.
My noble friend Lord Howell made some powerful arguments on onshore wind, the ongoing situation and the potential—or almost certain—overdeployment of onshore wind, even following this action, in terms of both the budget and the plans for onshore wind. Onshore wind is becoming cheaper. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has met with some developers who are happy to carry on deploying without the subsidies. I appreciate that we are not being specific about this at the moment, but we anticipate the continuing importance of onshore wind. However, it is important to look at the whole range of renewables, not just onshore wind.
It would be interesting to know the Opposition’s position on fracking. It is legitimate to ask that because the issue has been raised. We are obviously trying to encourage new energy sources in order to reduce costs and increase energy security. However, local communities, across the range, must be fully involved in planning decisions—be it shale or onshore wind—and we proceed on that basis. There should and will be a full public consultation for both. On that basis, I believe that Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everybody else who has taken part in this debate.
First of all, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that where subsidy—whether it be through tax breaks, ROCs or whatever—starts to be excessive, we must cut that back. Indeed, when he was Secretary of State, Ed Davey took a number of very tough decisions around solar and wind energy that did exactly that. None of us, certainly on these Benches, want profiteering from this area. That is not really what we are getting at in this debate. Clearly, value for money is important; the more that we can make it competitive, the better.
I press the Minister to tell us the challenge there still is to get neighbourhood plans across England, so we can understand; perhaps he will not be able to come back on it now. Whether this mechanism decided on by the Government works or not, I would still be very interested to hear where we are on it. Only by that being effective can even this system, as revised by the Government, really work. I would be pleased to get further feedback on that.
Clearly it is not appropriate to have a vote here, but I am very concerned that we have government policy going in one direction on one form of energy and in completely the opposite direction on another. That means inconsistency and a lack of confidence nationally and internationally in terms of finance. However, based on the Minister’s reply, I withdraw my opposition to the clause.
Baroness Worthington
“( ) In section 32LA (1) after “order” insert “subject to subsection (2A)”.
( ) After section 32LA (2) insert—
“(2A) The power to make a renewables obligation closure order applying to Scotland may only be exercised by Scottish Ministers.””
Baroness Worthington
We now pass to the second relatively controversial aspect of this Bill: the decision to close the renewables obligation a year earlier than had been originally legislated for in the Energy Act 2013.
Many of the people involved in the Energy Act 2013 will be aware of discussions that were had at the time when we debated the rights or wrongs of closing the RO. This amendment would return powers to control how the RO was dealt with in its final years to Scottish Ministers. We tabled this amendment to give ourselves an opportunity to state, for the record, that when we were debating the RO closures in the House of Lords—the power to close the RO was introduced by amendment in the House of Lords—it was under quite an unusual set of circumstances. The Minister was not present, so I hope it will be helpful if I give him some context.
Before the Energy Act 2013, Scottish Ministers had full control over the renewables obligation in line with the Scotland Act 1998, which devolved powers to the Scottish Government in respect of supplying electricity from renewable sources. The Energy Act 2013 took back this control through a government amendment tabled in this House, giving the Secretary of State the power to close the RO, including in Scotland. The justification for this change in the law was that it would facilitate a coherent and transparent closure across the UK and a move towards the new contract for a different system. However, that was not without concerns, and concerns were certainly raised in the other place. Fergus Ewing MSP was particularly vocal in his concern that the way this had been chosen to be dealt with was the stripping of Scottish Ministers’ powers in this area of discretion.
Since then, we were all working on the assumption that it would be an orderly transition from the RO to a new system of support. As recently as January this year, we had a statement from Ministers that there was no intention to review the RO and that it would continue as was planned. Then we saw the manifesto from the Conservative Party. I know that it is stating the obvious, but manifestos are not a document of government; they are a document of a political party. While you can claim that you can use the Salisbury convention, this is a rapid change in policy with significant implications not just for investors in the private sector—and the knock-on effect for all investors who are looking to bring their technologies and their investment to the UK—but particularly for Scotland, where there has been a real need for inward investment and a greater role for the private sector in creating jobs. For that to be so significantly affected by this manifesto commitment is truly regrettable, and I know that the Scottish aspect will be talked about in great detail when the Bill leaves this place and enters the other place.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I first say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, because I sounded a bit intemperate when I intervened earlier during his speech. I have known him for a while, both for his work in Wales and as a Back-Bencher before he received his well-deserved promotion. He has been one of the most diligent Ministers in keeping Members of all sides in touch with progress. I have had more letters faxed from his office than from anyone previously. It is really helpful and I am grateful to him for it.
My noble friend Lady Worthington has tabled one of the most significant political amendments to this Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will listen carefully, but I hope that he will consider all the implications of this measure. I know because I have worked with him that he understands devolution, because of his Welsh connection having been a Member of the Welsh Assembly, and he will know that there are political implications as far as Scotland is concerned.
As my noble friend said, these powers were repatriated to Westminster under the previous Energy Act on the clear understanding and promise from the Government that there would be no policy implications. It was said that it was just a technical change and that it would not affect any policy decisions. It was accepted by all sides, here and in Holyrood, because of that assurance. The Minister will know—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, knows a lot about this—that it is an exceptional thing to repatriate powers. Normally, they are going in the other direction: from here to Holyrood, month in and month out. So it was exceptional and, as I understand it, done without acrimony. But the Government have now used that for an entirely political purpose—a policy purpose—in contradiction and contravention of the promise they made, without any consultation whatever with the Governments of Wales and Scotland. That is why Fergus Ewing MSP, the Energy Minister in Scotland, was understandably very upset. He continues to be annoyed about it.
This action has been taken in bad faith. I see the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, who knows Scotland very well. I remember his father extremely well as a very diligent Secretary of State for Scotland. He would have understood the issue. I hope that the Minister and the Government will consider restoring the powers to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government up to 2017 so that decisions within Scotland about onshore wind and ROCs in Scotland should go back to the Scottish Government. That is not a lot to ask and I think the Government are honour bound to consider that in light of the promises they gave when this power was repatriated.
I understand the problems of giving assurances off the cuff and on the spur of the moment, but I hope that the Minister will agree to take this away and consult his colleagues in the department and either accept this amendment or bring forward an appropriate amendment to deal with what is an action taken in very bad faith.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for indicating that he would be willing to recommit these relevant clauses of the Bill when we have an opportunity to consider the grace period provision that the Government intend to bring forward. That shows a constructive response to the concerns that have been raised.
This is not really an interest to declare but, when I was Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Executive, as we then called it, I had some responsibility for the renewables obligation. The Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition in Scotland did much to take forward the case for the development of renewable resources in Scotland. To give the figures for Scottish renewables, around three-quarters of United Kingdom’s onshore wind developments are in Scotland. Therefore, that is where the impact of this measure will be most heavily felt. My noble friend Lord Teverson just handed me the Conservative manifesto and there is nothing in the wording on local decision-making to indicate that the period would be brought forward from April 2017 to April 2016, so I do not consider that this provision of Clause 60 is a manifesto commitment.
Given that the Scottish onshore sector directly employs more than 5,400 people and contributes £9 million to local people in community benefit each year, and that some 70% of people in Scotland support further development in wind and the benefits that it brings, it would be helpful if the Government recognised that there is a particular Scottish dimension to this. Obviously, planning matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Clause 59, which we have just debated, does not apply to Scotland so, to that extent, a distinction has already been made. In terms of this proposal, it would be in the spirit of devolution and constructive working with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government if Scottish Ministers were able to determine that the current situation—as we understood it—will continue to 2017. That would allow the position to be tailor-made for the part of the United Kingdom where there is the greatest concentration of onshore wind power.
My understanding is that the particular provision was devolved to Scottish Ministers by executive order under the Scotland Act 1998 and thus it was executive devolution. That is why, when it came to the 2013 legislation, it was possible legislatively for the renewables obligation to be withdrawn. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, the understanding was reached on a timetable which has suddenly now been changed. I know that the industry in Scotland is extremely concerned about it and I would therefore encourage the Minister to look at what is being proposed to see if there can be a particularly Scottish carve-out for this. If he does not feel he can go that far—I hope he would be able to—when we come to debate what might be done in terms of grace periods, perhaps provision could be made to enable Scottish Ministers to devise their own grace period provisions, given that there are some very particular issues with regard to the development of onshore wind in Scotland.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, before coming to the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his surprise that I am in my place and remind him that one should never believe everything one reads in the newspapers. I am only too glad to do my best to provide some grit for his oyster.
Before I go on, I should declare my energy interests as listed in the register, mostly in coal, although the wind industry has not in fact been a particular threat to coal. It has been more of a threat to the gas industry, which in some ways would have been a threat to coal. I urge my noble friend the Minister to stick to the Conservative manifesto commitment on this and not to visit upon Scotland a ruination of its landscape that would not be acceptable in England. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that, yes, there is a difference between the policy of the coalition Government at the start of the year and the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party, but that is because we had a change of government at the election.
The Government should not be taken in by the wind industry’s assertion that most people do not object to onshore wind. The commonly quoted research on this is often out of date and simplistic. For example, a MORI survey which is used to show that people do not mind or are supportive of wind farms was conducted in 2003, when a 15-turbine wind farm was considered large. Nowadays in Scotland they often comprise more than 30 and sometimes as many as 70 turbines. The land area of Scotland from which turbines are visible has dramatically increased over a short period. According to data from Scottish Natural Heritage, 20% of Scotland was theoretically visually impacted by turbines in 2008, whereas by 2013 it was almost 46%.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Viscount is making a powerful and coherent argument, but does he not agree that all we are suggesting is that this debate, in which he is taking part, would be better conducted in the Scottish Parliament where these matters are being considered? Indeed, it is now looking at energy in its overall, global sense. Would that not be much more appropriate? That is all the amendment is suggesting?
Viscount Ridley
Yes, but the point is that a lot of the subsidy that would go to Scottish wind farms comes from English taxpayers, so English taxpayers do have a role in this. Moreover, we are looking at this as a United Kingdom; I think most of us in this Chamber feel very strongly about that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, mentioned community benefit. It is worth pointing out that community benefit from wind farms is small when compared with other benefits. Supporters of onshore wind argue that community benefits can be substantial, but such claims need to be put into context and their worth assessed against wider factors that are important to communities. The Scottish Borders draft development strategy for 2014-20, which came out in July, compared the value of tourism with the value of current wind farms to the Scottish Borders economy. It found that in 2012 the gross value added of serviced, non-serviced and self-catering accommodation and day visitors was £182 million. In comparison, onshore wind energy contributed around £10.8 million gross value added.
Again, I urge my noble friend not only to stick to his guns on the renewables obligation, but to resist pressure to include the contracts for difference in a different way for Scotland. That would probably affect Scotland and Wales differently from England because of the planning constraints in England. That would beg the ethical question of whether it is acceptable to protect England from further intrusion but allow Scotland’s landscapes to be ruined.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving the amendment and noble Lords who have participated in the debate.
First, I shall set out the Government’s position and then deal with the points raised by noble Lords. The purpose of the amendment is to enable Scottish Ministers, rather than the United Kingdom Government, to close the renewables obligation in Scotland in relation to onshore wind.
For background, the legal powers for the Government to close this, as has been rightly said, were included in the Energy Act 2013. The reason for that was to ensure that consumers and the industry had clarity on the closure arrangements associated with the renewables obligation as part of the transition to the contracts for difference regime, and the confidence that closure would take place consistently across Great Britain during this process of transition—a point made by my noble friend Lord Ridley. The energy situation is on a GB basis and it is best that we move on that basis. These reasons still hold firm today.
Furthermore, energy policy across Great Britain is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Smith agreement, which are forthcoming in the Scotland Bill, and we are doing that throughout that Bill. We are doing it based on the Smith agreement and the agreement within that process of the five political parties of Scotland—the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. However, transferring legal authority to close the renewables obligation in Scotland to Scottish Ministers goes considerably further than this. My department has engaged and will continue to engage with Scottish Ministers and officials, as I do, throughout the development of this policy, in line with the spirit of the Smith agreement.
Finally, this proposed change could prevent the United Kingdom delivering on its ambition to end new subsidies for onshore wind. I appreciate that this is not popular throughout the House but it is, after all, based on a change of Government and on policy enshrined in the manifesto at the other side of a general election. It could also have wider impacts on the management of low carbon spend with possible increases to consumer energy bills.
To deal with the points made on the history of this, I appreciate that they were made absolutely correctly by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, of whom I am a considerable disciple on devolution issues, as he knows. The noble Lord was at his disarming best, which is considerable, and I appreciate what he was saying about the need to keep Scottish Ministers involved. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his kind words on consultation and what he said about the need to keep the Scottish Government involved. It is common ground between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government that the currently integrated GB-wide energy arrangements are in the interests of everybody, with Scotland being a net beneficiary of that. That is very much at the forefront of our thinking on this issue and it influences our thinking.
I take seriously the points made absolutely correctly by my noble friend Lord Ridley—I am very pleased that he is here today—on the importance of acting on a United Kingdom basis. That is what is behind this amendment. It is certainly not to do down Scotland—far from it. As noble Lords appreciate, this party—as are others here—is very much committed to ensuring that Scotland gets more than a fair deal within the United Kingdom. That is clearly important. With that, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness if she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and for the contributions from other noble Lords in this debate.
This is an issue that will not go away; it will come back and be debated with different amendments. As I said, this is a probing amendment, which is designed to enable us to have this debate. It is a very important debate. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has well-known views on this, but surely it is a matter of some subjectivity whether one considers the landscape to be ruined. Perhaps we should be weighing that against the economy being ruined by destabilising a very important, growing industry in a country that desperately needs inward investment and jobs. Comments were made, but it is the job of government to run the country in a way that tries to enable a good and sound policy environment that people can understand and act on in good faith.
We will spend the rest of the afternoon discussing these clauses—there is plenty to get at—so I will not make some of the points that I will make later, but I will flag in particular that the Minister has talked about a transition. I have sufficient concern that we are transitioning to something very uncertain. We do not know when the next round of CFD auctions will be held. We have seen a departure from the expected schedule already, very soon into the new Government. That will cause considerable concern and we will come to it.
The justification is that this is about an orderly transition. That masks the political nature of these clauses. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, this is quite a political amendment and quite a political part of the Bill. I do not think the Government will be able simply to brush this off and say that it is all for the good of the UK. Clearly, we have the Scottish Parliament for a reason. When it comes to these matters, where it has had powers in the past, it seems to go completely against the trend that there should be no concession from the Government on the Scottish Parliament having some say in this, particularly in this case, where the Government have taken the Salisbury convention and stretched it to its maximum. It is true that there is nothing specific in the Government’s manifesto about the sudden alteration of a policy that was discussed at length following a great deal of consultation not that long ago.
On the basis that we will return to this, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Worthington
Baroness Worthington
In moving Amendment 34B, I shall also speak to Amendments 34C, 34D and 35D in this group on the detail associated with the closure of the renewables obligation as we see it in the Bill. We have tabled a number of detailed amendments because we have been promised that the Government will bring forward detailed amendments to help to create some level of understanding and detail of how this provision of the early closure will work in practice. It is one thing to write a sentence in a manifesto, but something else to implement it in a way that does not cause great uncertainty or see people who have invested in good faith lose money because of what is essentially a political decision taken by a party that has been given the opportunity to form a Government. Being in government is very different from writing a manifesto, as I have said previously and will no doubt say again.
The amendments are designed to put some detail into this part of the Bill. They relate to the grace period, meaning how we will strictly define in law which projects are deemed to be sufficiently advanced to be allowed to continue under the RO, and the dates by which that will be judged. Amendment 34D would extend the renewables obligation accreditation period to 31 March 2017 for those schemes that submitted a planning application by 18 June 2015—the date on which all this was made public by the Government in their announcement.
Amendment 35D relates to the RO closure and grace period. Proposed new Section 32LD requires the Government to set out the grace period in regulations. This is just a placeholder while we await the Government’s promised amendments, which I hope we will be able to debate after the recess when we have the recommital to Grand Committee. We have gone into detail about what should happen in the event of variations of planning permissions and set out circumstances by which planning permission will be deemed to have been granted where there has not been a clear resolution. Proposed new Section 32LH sets out a means by which the grace period would start only once the clause has commenced.
These opposition amendments are rather detailed due to the absence of detail as yet from the Government. I have further comments to make about the clause which I think we will be given an opportunity to discuss when we discuss whether Clause 60 stand part. Therefore, I will keep my comments on the generality of the clause until then and move Amendment 34B on the grace period. As I say, I do so in the absence of the Government’s own amendments, which we look forward to seeing.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for speaking to these amendments regarding the grace period. We will come on to the principle of what is happening but I think it is recognised that there are important reasons why there should be a grace period, not least because of reasonable expectations that have been raised within the industry. If those are ditched, a stream of litigation could follow in its wake. Obviously, it would have been far preferable for the Government to bring forward their own amendments, although we recognise that that will happen. The Minister has indicated that he will seek a recommittal of some clauses. Can he give us any indication of a timescale of when the amendments might be tabled? It would be very unfortunate if we got them only some 48 hours or less before we had to consider them in detail.
We know from the impact assessment that has been made available that there has been an engagement exercise with hundreds of industry representatives, developers, investors and supply chain representatives right across Scotland, Wales and England, which concluded on 31 July. I am sure that the issues around the grace period must have featured prominently in those discussions. If the Minister can give us a flavour of the representations the Government have received, that would be very useful.
The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, on the opposition amendments were helpful as they indicated some of the things that we can reasonably expect to see in the Government’s amendments when they are brought forward—for example, that the grace period should be extended by an equivalent period of time as between 18 June and Royal Assent where projects have not been able to make a credit commitment prior to Royal Assent in cases where otherwise the project would have been capable of generation by 31 March 2017.
One of the things that the industry finds very difficult to grasp is why the requirement appears to be that planning permission has to be granted rather than sought. I think I am right in saying that in some of the solar cases the requirement was that an application was pending. There is a whole range of reasons why consent may not have been given, many of which are beyond the power of a developer to do anything about. Therefore, it could be somewhat arbitrary to say that a planning application had to have been consented to as delays could be beyond the developer’s control—for example, a rather tardy planning authority could be involved. What is the position if there is an appeal? Clearly, planning permission will not have been granted but an appeal may well be made on very solid grounds and could subsequently be granted.
One of the other issues that has been raised concerns delays to grid connections. Delays are sometimes caused due to aviation concerns coming into play. From my previous incarnation as a Scottish Minister, I know that these were often pertinent reasons that could delay an application. Even where planning permission and a grid connection contract are in place, there may well be delays due to the timing of the connection—for example, where there is a long wait for a significant line reinforcement and upgrade. I have had specific representations on that. I do not think that it would be helpful or proper to air those and name companies on the Floor of the Chamber but I will write to the Minister and I would be grateful if he would respond to the points made in that regard. That is the flavour of issues that we look to the Government to respond to when they bring forward their amendments. In the mean time, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for flagging up these issues.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I was not sure whether I would speak to this group or in support of the clause stand part Motion in the next group. I want to make a small but vital point and endorse the point touched on by others about the need for government consistency and clarity as soon as possible.
First, I declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, and also as a trustee of a trust in Scotland that has renewable investments, although no wind farms are involved. I also declare myself someone who would like to see the proper and ordered development of our renewable capabilities in this country.
It seems to me that it does not matter whether you are for or against wind farms, onshore or offshore—like the Government, you may prefer the more expensive and, to my mind, much more risky offshore wind. The point is that if a Conservative Minister can say in January that your investments are safe and that no changes in the rules are proposed, but then six months later the rules have changed, that undermines not only energy investment in this country but all investment. It makes banks run a mile. Say the Treasury had made promises to a car manufacturer to invest in northern England, and the investor spent millions preparing for the project on marketing exercises, planning and costings—I know from my own experience that preparing a project can often account for as much as a quarter of the total cost of a project. What if then the Treasury went and pulled the rug out and changed the rules? There would be a universal outcry—similar to that if a referee changed the rules in the middle of a game of football. To some extent, this is a game—an international game of investment. If we are going to compete economically, we must continue to be seen as a reliable country in which long-term investments are safe.
I admit that the Government’s manifesto commitment on land-based wind farms introduces a mitigating factor, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out earlier, it is only a peripheral factor to this clause, which is why I am speaking in favour of this group of amendments rather than in the stand part debate. But we must get a firm investment background sooner rather than later, and these amendments bring a degree of consistency back to the table. None the less, it would have been better if the Government had produced their own paper on grace periods, as they promised to do before Committee.
Even if we agree the government proposals on grace periods next month, that may be too late for some projects even if they are eligible at that stage. The trouble is that they are dependent on banks and credit, and banks are naturally cautious and, in my experience, inordinately slow about getting their processes and procedures in place, and even about producing the money. It could be months before these eligible projects get the go-ahead to proceed or to reproceed with their investment.
I will not say any more, but we really must get the rules fixed as soon as possible and then stick to them. That also applies to the basic ground rules for CFDs in the future. Bearing in mind that it takes at least five years to prepare for these projects, bankers and other investors must know with certainty where they stand as opposed to the state of limbo the Government have left them in at the moment. I hope that the Government will be able to respond positively to these amendments and give us some hint of exactly when we are going to hear what their views are.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I have just remembered that I should have declared an interest earlier, as I did at Second Reading, in that I am a trustee of the Climate Parliament, a grouping of Members of Parliament from around the world concerned with climate change. While we were discussing this earlier, I got an email inviting me to the annual Scottish Renewables reception on 27 October in Dover House, which David Mundell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, is hosting. That should be a very interesting occasion given our debates today and previously, as well as those we will have subsequently. I am certainly looking forward to it, although I do not know whether David Mundell will be.
There is very little to add, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, to what has been said by my noble friend Lady Worthington, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and, particularly, by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I thought his arguments about investment and uncertainty were very powerful indeed. I have had a number of letters—I have no doubt other Members have too—of concern from people who have invested money in this area in good faith and really think that the Government have let them down. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, put that very well.
I find it peculiar and worrying that the Government have taken so long to come up with any indication about what grace period or arrangements might be agreed. As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, I hope that the Minister will give us some indication that we will be told as quickly as possible, preferably well in advance of our sitting in October. I was disappointed to hear that it will be in the Moses Room. I hope that that can be looked at again and that it could take place on the Floor of the House, so that there is proper consideration of it. But wherever it is, I hope that we will know well in advance the proposals that the Government are putting forward and, even more importantly, that the industry and all those involved know of them well in advance. I know that my noble friend Lady Worthington and, I am sure, the Liberal Democrats will make it clear to the industry that we will go along with the Government if we agree with their proposals. That will give some degree of certainty to the industry. As I say, since so many good arguments have been made by the previous speakers, there is no need for me to repeat them.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may make a small contribution. I apologise to other noble Lords that I was not able to be in the Chamber when the first amendment was moved, which is why I did not take part then. We come to an area on which I spoke at Second Reading: my slight concerns about the grace period and not having enough information on it. It would be remiss of me not to follow up on that. I have listened to the whole of the discussions on this issue.
I remind noble Lords that we are not talking about a few pennies here. In fact, at Second Reading the Minister rightly reminded the House of the costs. He said that:
“In 2014, operational onshore wind farms in Great Britain received in the region of £800 million”,
which is a lot of money,
“under the renewables obligation”,
and that the Government,
“would expect this to increase to £1.1 billion per year if, as expected, a total of around 11.6 gigawatts of onshore comes forward”.—[Official Report, 22/7/15; cols. 1120-1.]
Because of that, and having listened to the various contributions on uncertainty, I would press the Minister to tell us as much as he can about where we are and how we are to proceed. That is the nub of the question. I do not think there was disagreement; perhaps some would like it to continue and be honoured for ever and ever. However, as I said at Second Reading, when new industries are being started, to me, government money is needed to pump-prime them. It is to start things and get them off the ground and once they are up and running, they should be able to come in at a cheaper rate. Looking to long subsidies was therefore not something I favoured.
I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little this afternoon about the Government’s plans for the grace periods. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that litigation might follow. I do not know whether the Minister has information on that, because it would be quite worrying. Maybe the noble and learned Lord can help me a little.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The point I was making was that if the Government had not done anything about grace periods, litigation might have followed. That is doubtless what has driven the Government to accept that there has to be a grace period.
Baroness Byford
I fully understood what the noble and learned Lord said and I took it on board, because clearly one wants to avoid that if we can. Nobody wants to end up there—not only because of the litigation but because of the delays it incurs, which other noble Lords have spoken to.
At the moment, I have slightly mixed feelings on this. In principle, I am quite supportive of what the Government are trying to do. In considering whether the approach should be different, in that a Scottish Minister should be able to decide, we should note that three out of four of these onshore wind farms are based in Scotland, so three-quarters of that money would be coming from England to support what Scottish Ministers might or might not decide to do. That is another debate we could have, but I hope the Minister can tell us more about the grace periods and when we are to receive more information.
I suspect that, like me, other noble Lords—and the Minister and his department—have found it difficult dealing with the Bill after the Recess in what is not the formal, long period for debate. We deserve greater clarification and, if the Minister cannot give it to us tonight, I hope it will be provided quickly in another of his wonderful letters that have kept us up to date with government thinking.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving the amendment. I hope to explain a bit about the Government’s thinking on this area and then to address the points reasonably raised by noble Lords.
Clause 60 introduces a provision to close the renewables obligation to new onshore wind farms in Great Britain from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than originally planned. There are two key reasons why I believe that that is the right approach. First and foremost, I and the department are committed to delivering the Government’s ambition to end any new subsidies for onshore wind while continuing to combat climate change. I appreciate that that is not something that all political parties or all noble Lords want, but I return to the point that there has been an election. I accept that things were said under the previous Government, but they were a different Government. It may be that the transition is more difficult because they were a coalition Government, but it should not have taken noble Lords entirely by surprise that this Government sought to make a change in this area. Secondly, the Government are committed to keeping domestic energy bills as low as possible.
With that context in mind, let me turn to the amendments. Their purpose is to clarify the terms of the grace period applying to the closure of the renewables obligation to onshore wind, specifically allowing those projects which had applied for planning permission as at 18 June—the date of the policy announcement—to continue to be able to accredit until the original renewables obligation closure date of 31 March 2017. In addition, the amendments would provide further detail about how the grace period would operate in certain planning scenarios and propose extra time for projects that have encountered difficulties in securing financing.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the early closure of the renewables obligation to onshore wind, she also proposed a grace period to protect investor confidence, as I think noble Lords are aware. The proposal was to offer a grace period to those projects which, as of 18 June 2015, already have relevant planning consents, a grid connection offer and acceptance of that offer—or confirmation that no grid connection is required—and access to land rights.
At the time of her announcement, the Secretary of State also said that she wanted to hear the views of industry and other stakeholders before framing the terms of the legislation. As such, my department has been conducting an engagement exercise to understand whether our proposed grace period draws the line in the right place. This means balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public. That is what we are considering at the moment. We are still reviewing the feedback and evidence provided by stakeholders in order to inform our final policy position.
I am not in a position today to frame the final terms of the grace period, and it is not right that I should trail a running commentary on where we are, as I have been invited to do by noble Lords who, as I can understand, want to hear more. I must wait until the final terms of the grace period are fully thought through, following the conclusion of the department’s analysis.
I appreciate the understandable wish that all this had happened earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, all expressed frustration at the fact that we do not know what the grace period proposals will be. I understand why I am being pressed on this, and I will ensure that the House has reasonable notice of the Government amendments.
I agree that 48 hours is insufficient and hope and believe that we can do better than that. If I may, I will provide a commentary on where we are on this by the usual letters if there is any difficulty with bringing the amendments forward in a timely way. I quite understand that the House wants to know exactly what the Government are doing or seek to do in this area. I confirm that we will endeavour to give appropriate, reasonable notice of the amendments ahead of the day and recommittal in the Moses Room.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and for the contributions from other noble Lords. As I said, we will have the opportunity in the next debate to discuss the principle of this clause. Here, though I am tempted not to, I will keep my comments to the grace period issues. I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us an assurance that he will give us sight of those amendments with more than 48 hours’ notice. That would be absolutely correct. The noble Lord may find it annoying to keep us posted with a running commentary but it is not as annoying as we find having to respond to huge amounts of information that is very delayed and late.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I hope I did not give the impression that I find it irritating to give a running commentary. I do not. It is absolutely appropriate that I should and, as I indicated, I am very happy to do so on where we are on the grace periods. I indicated that I will seek to ensure that the House has reasonable notice of those amendments. Furthermore, I will give an indication that we are or are not on course for that. I hope it will be the former case.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the noble Lord. The grace period is incredibly important. We are talking about sunk costs of hundreds of millions of pounds that people have put in, in good faith, on the back of the Energy Act 2013, which has been changed rather intemperately with very little notice and no consultation. You can see why people are concerned about getting the detail and getting it early. We have had two months since the Bill was introduced in which to have these amendments come forward, and it is regrettable that we still do not have them.
As I said, the next debate will give us the opportunity to discuss the broader context and particularly the impact assessment and what it tells us about the logic and rationale for this more generally. Given that we will have the opportunity to discuss these amendments in the Moses Room after we come back from recess, and that we will have good early sight of them, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, we gave notice that we would seek to oppose that Clause 60 stand part of the Bill as an opportunity—one already foreshadowed—for a general debate on the merits of the proposal that no renewable obligation certificate should be issued under a renewable obligation order in respect of electricity after 31 March 2016 by an onshore wind generating station accredited after that date, in other words a year earlier than the established timetable that coalition Ministers signed up to.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, although my noble friend Lord Teverson effectively rebutted it. Of course one does not wish to pour money in to help profiteering or have dead weight. However, it is very clear that the coalition agreed that the renewable obligations for onshore wind and others would cease on 31 March 2017. It is bringing that forward by a year that gives rise to such consternation in the industry. It is an understatement that the announcement, made just over 10 months before it takes effect, has caused widespread dismay in an industry in which, by its very nature, there will always be very long lead times. One developer who wrote to me said,
“Unilateral changes to policy have impacted upon investor confidence and the sector will without doubt see retrenchment that will result in a loss of jobs and growth in Scotland and around the UK. The loss of clean, affordable and secure energy is coupled together with a loss of investor confidence in the UK Government’s willingness to remain as a reliable, long term partner for infrastructure developments, that often take upwards of five years merely to bring to a planning application stage.”
That reflects what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said on the last amendment. It is not just with specific regard to wind power that this change at relatively short notice can have an impact. All the sources of renewable generation of electricity have long lead times. There will now be a question mark over each of them as to whether the Government, if they are capable of changing policy at very short notice in respect of onshore wind, will also change it in other developments. Inevitably, that could have a chilling effect on these developments.
It is interesting that the Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index published by Ernst & Young in June indicated that in terms of onshore wind the rankings for the United Kingdom had gone down from eighth to 11th. I think that was in the course of just one year. It noted that onshore wind was quickly becoming one of the country’s cheapest sources of energy. The Government’s intention to withdraw support for onshore wind therefore contradicts their pledge to reduce emissions at least cost; energy prices could be pushed up as more expensive sources such as offshore wind are used to fill the capacity gap as onshore wind projects fall away. Of the many sources of renewable generation of electricity, possibly with the exception of hydropower, onshore wind might be said to be the most mature.
I indicated in an earlier debate that 75% of these developments are in Scotland, which directly employs more than 5,400 people. They generated more than a third of Scotland’s electricity needs in 2013 and are driving billions of pounds of investment to allow the United Kingdom to meet its renewables and climate targets. What concerns us about this clause is the threat to business confidence, to jobs and to the prospect of the United Kingdom meeting its climate targets.
With regard to business confidence, I have already indicated that what can happen in one sector can happen in others. The conclusion of the Ernst & Young survey of lender attitudes to the early closure of renewable obligations support mechanism and a survey undertaken for Scottish Renewables published over the weekend states:
“Raising project finance for UK onshore wind RO projects has become more complex, more expensive and increasingly more difficult since the early closure of the RO and supporting grace period. As a result there are fewer banks willing to lend to UK onshore RO projects. Those that are considering lending are seeking better terms and some form of mitigation against the situation with no ROC revenue; and as we move closer to the RO accreditation end date, the ongoing uncertainty makes it harder for projects and sponsors to raise senior finance”.
So there would appear to be an issue of business confidence. The Minister said in an earlier debate that the Secretary of State had met the developers and assured them that wind power would continue. He mentioned in another context that there would continue to be community developments. The sense I am getting is that this is not the cast-iron guarantee that he indicated the Secretary of State’s approach seemed to be. There is also the question of the position on onshore wind power with regard to future CFDs and, in particular, when the next CFD will be. If business confidence is damaged there is inevitable damage to jobs and the industry as a whole. RenewableUK said the changes to financial support for onshore wind threatens survival of the industry in the UK and 19,000 jobs supplied to the sector.
One cannot readily understand why a Conservative Government, who purport to be business-friendly, are threatening what has become a very important business in the United Kingdom over recent years. The purpose of this debate is to try to flush out the Government’s expectations. What reasonable expectation can the industry have that onshore wind will be included in a future CFD round? Can the Minister give an indication when that will be? We are always told that one of the reasons for doing this is to drive lower consumer bills. I cannot fathom why you would prejudice the renewable technology sector, which is likely to deliver most and is becoming steadily cheaper? If you take out onshore wind, solar and hydro, then you are looking to the more expensive options such as offshore wind, tidal power and wave power—developments that I would very much support, but which I readily acknowledge would be far more expensive. Nuclear power is often the Government’s other option, but we hear that Hinkley Point is probably looking as far ahead as 2027 before that is actually commissioned and, again, it is more expensive than onshore wind. I believe that there is a threat to our climate targets.
The fourth carbon budget, published in December 2013, set out the requirements on decarbonisation including projections on how to decarbonise electricity by 2030, which the climate change committee says is necessary to maintain the most cost-effective path to the low-carbon economy. It set out four scenarios and it looked at the high and low scenarios in favour of nuclear and wind. If one takes out onshore wind, which is not going to reach its expected level because of the lack of developments from this measure, and if we believe that the contribution of nuclear is going to be very delayed, how do the Government think they will meet these decarbonisation targets? Uncertainty impacts on a whole range of renewable technologies and it would be useful in this debate if the Government gave the House a clear indication as to how they see the road to a lower carbon economy, given that they are taking away support for the cheapest option and will have to rely on the more expensive options.
The Government talk a good game—they talk about going to the Paris climate change talks and wanting to give leadership. But it is difficult to see how leadership can be given when the practice is to undermine some of the very measures that would allow us to move forward and meet our renewables targets. Therefore, if the Government are to give any leadership at all in Paris, and have any credibility there, they must set out very clearly how they see the components of their renewables strategy as we move forward. On the back of this particular clause I do not think that any of us have much confidence that they will do so.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, I kept my powder dry on the general points until now, which ran the risk that some of the points I would like to make have been made, particularly by my noble friend Lord Howell, and very eloquently. I would like to encourage the Minister to stick to the manifesto promise to get rid of onshore wind subsidies, to stand up for consumers and not to do the bidding of what is, effectively, a crony capitalist industry addicted to state subsidies.
The Government wish to pursue decarbonisation without making energy either unaffordable or insecure. We have heard this many times as the principle behind both the Government’s and the Opposition’s stance, but, like the Minister, I am curious to know what the Opposition’s stance will be after this weekend. Wind simply does not help in this regard; it is not solving the trilemma at all. It is putting up energy costs, reducing energy security and failing to make a significant dent in emissions.
The fact is that the increased onshore wind production of recent years has failed to make any measurable reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, due to significant, intractable problems of intermittency, location and energy density. We know that the best way of cutting emissions is for gas to replace coal and, indeed, for coal to go to supra-critical use, which is much more efficient. That is not happening in this country because nobody wants to invest in new up-to-date combined cycle gas because wind is dumped on to the system at zero marginal cost. As a result, no new CCGTs are being built because the economics of operating them has been destroyed. I challenge those who support these amendments to give me a number in tonnes or percentages of emissions that have been reduced as a result of the wind power that has rolled out already. I cannot find such a number and it is impossible to say that it is significant at all.
I, too, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, had a letter from a wind company saying that wind energy is clean, affordable and secure. I am sorry, but I do not think it is any of those things. It is not true to say that it is cheap. The industry keeps saying that it is the cheapest form of renewable energy, but that is wrong. We know hydro is cheaper, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said.
Besides, a lot of the cost of onshore wind is still hidden. The Department of Energy and Climate Change has not used a total-systems approach in its cost modelling. In other words, it does not factor in the costs of transmission, grid integration, back-up during periods of intermittency, and so forth. The department appears to understand this as it has recently commissioned Frontier Economics to undertake a study into the true costs of energy generation by wind. It would be wise for the Government to wait for the outcome of this research before providing any more financial support to onshore wind.
The wind industry is, as my noble friend Lord Howell said, a Hood Robin industry: it takes money disproportionately from the poor, for whom energy bills are a larger proportion of spending, and gives it largely to the rich, in the form of landowners or investors. A lot of the money in wind is sheltering from inheritance tax through business property relief, as we learnt in this morning’s papers, which is something only rich people need to do. Does the Minister share my amazement that this monster of regressive redistribution was invented by Ed Miliband, encouraged by the Lib Dems and may or may not be supported by Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party? This is yet another case where the Conservatives are standing up for ordinary people, while the left looks after the interests of the metropolitan rich.
It is just not true to say that onshore wind is clean. True, it emits no smoke or effluent here, but the rare earth metals in a wind turbine’s magnets, roughly a tonne of neodymium per turbine, are mined and refined in China in one of the most polluting industries on earth, and the steel in the turbine’s tower can only be made using coal.
We have not solved the problem of adding an intermittent source of supply to the electricity grid. The very large amounts of wind generation currently being added to the system are not solving the security problem. In fact, they are the problem. In other words, the greater the percentage of electricity from wind in the system, the more some other kind of quick-response generation is needed, and this often means keeping old, fossil-fuel stations going.
It is worth reiterating that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the UK has enough onshore wind projects in the pipeline to meet the 2020 renewables targets, so there is no need to offer any further financial incentives.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and, with respect to the previous amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that the wind industry needs certainty. Like me, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is a farmer. Farmers would have loved some certainty about the wheat price earlier this year. It plummeted, and we had no warning at all. To argue that this industry peculiarly needs certainty when others do not is not fair. Once a subsidy is in place, it should be possible to withdraw it. Otherwise, if we say that we are going to withdraw a subsidy, people will always respond that they have not had time to adjust to that. I hope the Minister will confirm that he will stand firm against this attempt to keep electricity more expensive, more unreliable and probably no less carbon-intensive.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I declare my interests, as I did on earlier days in Committee, as president of the Energy Industries Council, chairman of the Windsor Energy Group and adviser to industries and investors concerned with energy as in the register. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has been exceptionally helpful in the way he has circulated and kept us all up to date with the evolution of government thinking. I realise that this is a changing situation, and even when we have finished with this legislation, we will be looking at further changes in the pattern of energy and energy support, and in world, European and national perceptions of how best to move towards meeting the challenge of climate change and lowering emissions globally, which is itself a matter of constant debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was right to say that investors need certainty. Of course they do. Investors always long for maximum certainty, minimum risk and nice returns. That is nirvana for investors, but when investors or their advisers are dealing with projects and commitments of finance that depend on government support and state subsidy, a certain degree of sagacity and caution is called for. I make a distinction between specific projects where one of the partners is the state or the Government. They must go forward in a legalised, contractual form and should not be departed from. It would be an appalling act of arbitrary sequestration for such things to change. It has happened, I am afraid, but it is not something I wish to see from a British Government. One expects the funds that have been promised by Governments to be given.
When it comes to a commitment to an apparently unending pattern of subsidy heading into the future, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us that the coalition Government had an idea that this sort of subsidy should end. When it comes to investing in something where you will depend on the continual supply of taxpayers’ money, sensible investors ought to be very cautious. Governments change, as my noble friend reminded us, and technological changes change the basis on which the original subsidy policy was evolved. Moods change, and—dare I say it?—even science changes. I would not go as far as Cardinal Wolsey, who lay on his deathbed saying, “Put not your trust in princes”, but there has to be a sensible assessment when an investment is profitable simply because taxpayers’ money is promised to it for a long period into the future. There has to be a sensible assessment by the investor, the entrepreneur and the project organiser of how it is going to stand up and how big a risk is being taken. It may be that people see that they can pop in with short-term investments and hope to get out before the policy changes, but that does happen, and a certain realism is required. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that ideally all investors would love total certainty about their returns for ever, regardless of the source.
The noble Lords who gave notice of their intention to oppose Clause 60 standing part of the Bill want subsidies to go on or feel that they should not have been curtailed in the way they have been, even though, as my noble friend Lord Ridley pointed out, the pipeline is full, which is language for saying that the amount of subsidy element that has been assigned for this has reached its peak in terms of political reality, common sense and our obligations, whether imposed through our Climate Change Act or through conformity with European objectives. Noble Lords think the subsidy is gone, but my question is: when will the subsidies cease? If this is a mature industry, at what point does a mature industry cease to need a very substantial degree of subsidy, quite regardless of the point we made earlier that the subsidy tends to end up in very well-lined pockets and costs a lot for those who can least afford it? As my noble friend Lord Ridley said, onshore wind electricity is still expensive. It is true that it is not expensive compared with offshore, but when you add in the roads, the system costs, the requirements for integration and balancing in a very complicated electricity system and all the other items that my noble friend itemised, we are not talking about cheap electricity. One day, it may be so; one day, onshore, and possibly offshore, will be able to get costs down to competitive rates, possibly to lower rates than anything that is likely to come out of the latest nuclear project from EDF at Hinkley, which has an enormously high rate for 35 years to come. I hope that long before then wind power electricity will be considerably cheaper than anything that EDF is planning, but that still will not make it cheap. We are heading for a major glut in gas production; we can already see that from the fall in oil prices. As gas prices are related to oil prices, the barrel of oil equivalent of the gas price will, for many years to come, be not at all expensive and probably low. Compared with all that, these renewable sources, which have their place, which must contribute and which I support, will remain expensive. In other words, someone has to pay for them.
Lastly, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, has alleged, I think along with others, that there is a contrast between the need to restrain further subsidies—not to halt the development of onshore wind, because if it can get its costs down and, as I mentioned earlier, if many investors believe that they see tax advantages in it, it will go on, even if the subsidies are withdrawn and we close off the renewables obligation completely— and the Government’s attitudes to fracking. I hardly dare mention fracking because almost anything one says in this very controversial area gets wildly distorted. If fracking proceeds in the UK—I say “if” because oil is at $50 and likely to become lower, with many people now talking about $25 and $30—the investment attraction of gas or oil extraction by hydraulic fracturing will, frankly, not be great. It could become an additional gas source to the many already available to us. There is LNG, obviously, and Norway is willing to pipe us a lot more gas, while even the Russians want to sell us gas direct through their Nord Stream pipeline extension. If all those ifs fall into place, we will have gas.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on a couple of those issues. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, completely forgets about the demand side in demand response management. That will become a lot simpler and more important as time goes on. No other part of economics that works properly in this world concentrates only on supply and ignores demand. That is one of the real challenges in policy-making, and it is starting to move forward.
On investment and guaranteed returns, I agree. When people investing in renewables sometimes complain about what is going on, I often compare the energy system to the common agricultural policy, as was, and say that this is heaven: there are guaranteed prices out into the future. Why do we do that? Because it is recognised that the Government are not going to invest, CEGB-wise, as they did in the old days. The biggest component in that conversion is capital costs. The biggest way you can make a difference to the cost of high-capital-intensity energy—not just renewables but nuclear and a lot of other technologies too—is by keeping the cost of money absolutely down. That is a decision that we make for good policy reasons: to keep the cost of energy as low as possible because the capital costs and cost of financing are as low as possible.
The noble Lord asked when we will get to a point where we stop subsidising. I suppose the answer is when we start charging fossil fuels the cost of the pollution that they put into the atmosphere and what they are going to cost future generations who will have to cope with climate change—next to the migration issues that they will face in the future, what we have now is nothing—along with all the issues and costs that there will be around it. When fossil fuels count that back into the present cost, that is how a realistic carbon price can be arrived at, as is often talked about on all sides of the House. That is one way of doing it but we have not managed to do it sufficiently. The Chancellor in the previous Government decided to cap the carbon price floor where it was, so that policy has been blocked as well. Those are some of the answers to the noble Lord’s questions. Are we left with a perfect world? No, we are not. That is why we have a mixture of technologies at the moment to try to drive this agenda forward, so that we move towards a sane and safer future for us all.
There are two important points here. First, I am probably on the same agenda as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on the gas side, but the way to get gas into this equation is to take coal out of it. That is the most important thing that we can do, as Dieter Helm often preaches at us as policymakers. So that whole area needs to be taken into consideration.
Secondly, it is one of the ironies that through this legislation we are throwing away one of the cheaper, though admittedly not perfect, technologies. Yes, there is variability in wind power. As I have said many times in this House, I can see many wind turbines from my own house. Do they ever stop? Hardly ever but, while it is not intermittency, I agree that there is a high degree of variability. However, I remember a government statistic from about five years ago, when we had started going through the alternative planning system for major infrastructure projects in the Moses Room. This was a time when wind power did not make up the proportion of energy generation that it does now and then the utilisation of the total UK fleet of generators—sometimes we make it sound as if it were something like 90% to 95%—was in fact 50%. So we have major redundancy even within our conventional power systems. Some of these arguments can be rather exaggerated.
Viscount Ridley
Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he could answer the question that I posed: how much has wind power reduced emissions by? If you take into account the full integration costs and the fact that, as he has just said, we have been unable to drive coal off the system with gas because gas does not want to come on to the system because of wind, it is very hard to argue that there has been any significant reduction as a result of wind power.
Lord Teverson
I absolutely agree about the failure of gas to drive out coal. That is why I have been a major advocate of emissions performance standards, which we brought in with the Energy Act 2013, but we have delayed actually doing that. I wish that I had the numbers with me. My noble and learned friend is showing me a document but I do not have my glasses on, so I hope I will be forgiven for not being able to read it. I do not know what the CO2 figure is—I am sure that government documents from DECC have said what it is and I shall have to look it up—but I am absolutely certain that through the increase in the proportion of energy transmission through renewables the levels have gone down, because renewables, which are zero-carbon technologies, are a much bigger proportion of our generation. Over the same time, I am pleased to say that energy efficiency has gone up by 2% per annum, or whatever the figure is. I look forward to finding out that information and informing the noble Viscount. I do not necessarily recognise a lot of his figures within the context of what he is talking about but I am sure that they are as good as any quoted in the House.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for opposing the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill. It is tempting to engage on the many points that have been made about the principle of onshore wind in general, but I would rather stay focused on Clause 60 and say why I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord’s proposal that it should not form part of the Bill. That is mainly due to the process by which the Government have conducted themselves. I do not wish to misquote the Minister but he said that he needs time to think things through in relation to the grace period, and that is quite a telling statement. It is clear to me that this clause has not been fully thought through and that it has been put in hastily, without due consideration of the full implications and without due consultation. For those reasons, I am very supportive of the idea that we should simply take the clause out, do the thinking and consulting, and then come back with something that is fit for purpose.
With regard to things being fit for purpose, during the course of the Bill we have had exchanges about the impact assessment. We now have an impact assessment in relation to this clause, but I have to say that it was not exactly worth waiting for. It does not cover some of the most important issues in enough detail. It is incredibly lacking in proper detail in its attempt to make a net present value calculation of the implications of introducing the clause, and I find that it has significant weaknesses.
My overall impression is that the department is building the aeroplane as it takes off from the runway and that not enough thought has been given to this clause. It all seems to hinge on two words in the Conservative Party manifesto: “new” and “subsidies”. There is a great deal of subjectivity in interpreting the phrase “new subsidies”. It cannot be claimed that the RO is a new subsidy—it has been in existence for a number of years—and it cannot be argued that the RO provides, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, subsidies for ever and ever. It does not do that. It does not create an unending subsidy. The RO is closing. It will close, as we agreed in the Energy Act 2013, in March 2017. That is not far away—in the grand scheme of things, it is about 12 months. In their haste to generate some kind of political benefit from this attempt to destabilise onshore wind, in those 12 months the Government are destabilising investment across the energy market, and that is deeply regrettable. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for stating the wider implications of what the Government are doing here. There is a question of how we deal with industry and how we encourage people to invest in the UK.
I raised a general point about my disappointment with the impact assessment. I made it clear in a letter to the Minister and on the Floor of the House that we wanted to see the impact assessment properly make the case for the Government’s concern about the levy control framework running out of money or not having sufficient money. I am afraid that there is insufficient detail in the impact assessment. It does not give us any sight of the Government’s numbers on this or explain why they are so concerned.
More than that, the impact assessment makes me fear that the department does not even understand the energy policy that it is governing. When it comes to considering the benefits and costs of this intemperate change to policy, which was changing anyway, it considers only the positive benefit of a reduction in resources—by which I assume it means the amount of money that has been spent on onshore wind—and then it sets against that the increased cost of the EUA purchases. It makes very precise calculations over a period of 24 years to 2040. I am in the business of monitoring the carbon market in Europe and not a single analyst can give you any degree of confidence about the numbers relating to the carbon price over that period. I am afraid that the table on page 15 is really a work of fiction.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Baroness, at least for her very last point about how she is looking forward to my response. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for tabling his opposition to the clause, as it provides me with the opportunity to explain why Clause 60 should stand part of the Bill. I will then turn to specific points made by noble Lords during the debate.
Clause 60 would close the renewables obligation to new onshore wind projects in Great Britain a year earlier than originally planned. On the one hand, we had some noble Lords saying that it is only a year; on the other hand, we had some talking about it as though it were the end of civilisation as we know it. Therefore, there is something of an inconsistency in some of the arguments being deployed.
There are two key reasons why I believe that closing the RO is the right approach. I should say, first, that onshore wind will remain important and will remain massively deployed. We will spend more on onshore wind next year than we are spending this year, so, again, that needs to be accepted. Jobs are, and will continue to be, provided by that industry. Perhaps I may pick up on one point about jobs uncertainty. It is because we are still considering the situation in relation to the grace period that we are unable to say with any degree of certainty what the jobs position will be.
First and foremost, I am committed to delivering on the Government’s ambition to halt the spread of onshore wind while continuing to combat climate change. Secondly, it is essential that the Government keep domestic energy bills as low as possible for consumers and act when necessary to ensure that costs are contained and remain within our low-carbon spending cap. That is not to say that the Government do not recognise the need to strike the right balance in taking developers’ interests into account when implementing this policy. I have indicated what we are doing in relation to the grace period and the engagement exercise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is engaged in. I will explain this further in due course.
Let me set out why the Government are taking the necessary steps to close the renewables obligation to new onshore wind projects. The Government’s ambition for onshore wind was made very clear within our manifesto. I know that many noble Lords understandably regret the outcome of the general election, but there was a general election; it was a manifesto commitment and, of course, we remain committed to implementing it. That is what democracy is about. The essence of that is choice and people made their decision. As such, we now have the mandate to halt the spread of subsidised onshore wind. Clause 60 aims to deliver part of this pledge by closing the renewables obligation to new onshore wind from 1 April 2016—a year earlier than originally planned.
I would like to provide reassurance to noble Lords that by taking this step, the Government are not shying away from their commitment to tackle climate change. We are confident that we can meet our 30% renewable electricity ambition by 2020 without additional onshore wind, other than that already deployed. Indeed, we are running ahead of the projections.
Baroness Worthington
We will consider this matter later but it is simply not true that we are ahead of our European renewables target. That target relates to all energy and we are not on track in regard to it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I hope the noble Baroness will agree that we are on track in relation to the electricity ambition.
Lord Teverson
The obligation relates not to electricity but to energy. There is no electricity obligation of any kind.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, onshore wind has deployed successfully to date and is an important part of our energy mix. Our analysis demonstrates that when we take early closure of the renewables obligation into account we still expect total UK deployment of onshore wind to fall within our Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan projections of between 11 and 13 gigawatts by 2020. This is our best estimate of what we would need to meet our 2020 targets and what we can afford under our low-carbon spending cap. In fact, the department’s projections relating to the 18 June announcement estimated that by 2020 onshore wind deployment, in the absence of intervention, could be between 12 and 15 gigawatts. The upper end of this range is significantly higher than the 11 to 13 gigawatts set out at the time of the delivery plan. Without any action, we could deploy beyond this range. As the 18 June announcement made clear, we therefore considered it appropriate to curtail further deployment of onshore wind, thereby balancing the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public.
This takes us on to my second point: affordability. My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to the trilemma and the fact that the Government are seeking three things, as the previous Government did: to ensure affordability, security and carbon-free. That very much remains the aim. Tackling climate change must be done in a cost-effective way. We want to ensure that consumer energy bills are kept as low as possible while we cut carbon emissions.
The Government have provided vital financial support to the renewables sector, which has helped new and innovative technologies, reduced our emissions and increased the amount of low-carbon electricity that powers homes and businesses across the United Kingdom. In short, subsidy is necessary to give some impetus to development, and that is what we have done, but we have to keep the costs under review and control.
However, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest projections show that subsidies raised from consumer bills are currently set to be higher than expected when the schemes were set up under our low-carbon spending cap, the levy control framework. This is due to a number of uncontrollable factors, including lower than expected wholesale prices and greater than expected renewable generation. The revised levy control framework forecasts indicate that spending in 2020 is projected to be £9.1 billion in 2012 prices for low-carbon generation. The Government set a limit of £7.6 billion. As such, the current forecast is £1.5 billion above that limit. These additional costs could be met through increases in consumer energy bills. It is therefore only right that we now look at ways to protect value for money and affordability under the levy control framework. My department has announced a package of measures to deal with the projected overallocation of renewable energy subsidies. The onshore wind measures are therefore part of a co-ordinated approach to managing spend under the levy control framework.
Baroness Worthington
I am sorry to interrupt but this is an important part of the Bill. Can the Minister explain how it will be possible to spend less under the levy control framework by removing the ability for more and cheaper renewables to come forward? Either we miss our European targets or we will be using more expensive renewables to hit our targets, which will run through the levy control framework even faster. I simply do not understand how one can use the framework as a reason to remove one of the cheaper forms of renewables. If affordability is our goal—which I agree it should be—then surely we should enable technologies to compete fairly on price and not rule out some of the cheapest versions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
On that specific point, the noble Baroness will know that the costs of deploying some renewable technologies is falling. That is certainly true of onshore wind; it is also true of solar. It is important but I have to say to the noble Baroness that, in reaching our decarbonisation targets, nuclear remains a vital part of the mix. I see that she agrees and it would therefore be interesting to hear at some stage whether the Opposition are committed to backing the Government in relation to that important point, as they have done previously.
That brings me to the issue of investor confidence. It is a fair point to make. I can understand that there is a need for certainty but it must be balanced against the need to get it right in relation to the grace period. That is why we have taken somewhat longer than expected and why we are to have recommittal to a fourth day in the Moses Room to consider that issue. We cannot rush engagement on the grace period and get the intention right in relation to investor confidence. I come back to the point that no one should have been taken by surprise that the Government were going to alter the position in relation to onshore wind; it was in the manifesto. I do not therefore accept the uncertainty argument that somehow people are taken by surprise. I have indicated that we will bring forward amendments on grace periods and will ensure that noble Lords receive them in a timely manner, ahead of the recommittal stage in the Moses Room.
I shall seek to deal with some of the points made by noble Lords. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly said that business confidence was an important part. I agree and I hope that I have dealt with how we regard that as important, but we want to get it correct.
My noble friend Lord Ridley made telling points about how we have to balance interests in relation to the trilemma and our commitment in the manifesto. He reminded us of the fact that there are sometimes no easy ways in which to deliver, even in relation to onshore wind. As he said, there are carbon costs and costs in relation to the manufacture of turbines and so on. There are no easy answers.
My noble friend Lord Howell correctly reminded us of the need for back-up facilities, which takes us back to nuclear. Many renewables are intermittent in nature and we therefore need back-up to them. That point was well made.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, correctly said that there were things to be done on the demand side that were not in the Bill. I accept that but I can reassure him that work is continuing in the department on innovation, improvements in white goods and regulation. The important programme of smart meters, which started under the previous Government, is continuing apace. All these are important points that we take on board.
I accept the point that the noble Baroness made: this is a political position—there is no doubt of that. It was a difference between parties in their manifestos. On that basis, I remind noble Lords that it was in the manifesto and therefore respectfully beg that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Minister has indicated that a justification for the position is to reduce domestic consumer bills. That is not an unreasonable thing to try to do. However, I just want to make sure that I understand the impact assessment. On the second page, it says:
“Reduced risk to LCF from over-allocation of renewable energy subsidies, and benefit to consumers from reductions in consumer energy bills (in 2016/17 average household electricity bills could be up to £3.40 (0.6%) lower, with a central estimate of around £0.30 (0.05%), compared to the Do Nothing option) (2014 prices)”.
I am more than ready to stand corrected, but am I right in thinking that the central estimate of the Government in this is that this measure will save 30p in an annual domestic electricity bill?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble and learned Lord has correctly identified the part of the impact assessment that deals with this. It could be a saving of up to £3.40. I accept that that is not a massive amount, but it has to be taken account of in the context of the fact that we are seeking to keep within the deployment estimates that we put forward. I do not think it should be sniffed at: this does not appear, on the face of it, to be a massive amount, but it makes quite a considerable difference to some consumers that we are reducing bills by that amount. That is what we are seeking to do and I make no apology for it. However, that is only part of the consideration.
Baroness Worthington
As I said, the impact assessment is really rather lacking in detail. It may make those assumptions, but it does not give any detail as to what the ingoing parameters are on those numbers. If instead of onshore wind we build offshore wind to compensate for the lack of delivery on the target, there will be a net increase to customers’ bills under this clause.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I accept that obviously there is a question about what is used instead. However, I remind the noble Baroness and the House that, even with this action, we are well above the deployment estimates that were made in relation to onshore wind.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate and, indeed, to the Minister for his response. He has set out the position that the Government are coming from.
It is important that we look at this clause in detail. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, when I saw that there would be no new public subsidy, I took it to mean that there would be no “new” subsidy, as opposed to an old one—ROCs are certainly quite old. However, I hear the interpretation that the Minister and his Conservative colleagues place on it. One can only speculate as to whether they ever thought they would have to deliver this policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, with wonderful understatement, thanked the Minister because he thought that we were hearing an evolution in government thinking. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said that it was like building an aeroplane as it was taking off along the runway. Some might say that it is making it up as you go along. The lack of clarity in some areas of the impact assessment and the fact that we do not yet know what will happen with the grace periods gives some indication that perhaps this was a policy that had not quite been fully thought through, if I can just leave it at that. However, some concerns continue.
I can understand why the Minister said at the outset of his remarks that, on the one hand, people say it is just a year but, on the other hand, people say it is the end of civilisation as we know it. I take the political point that the Government won an election, but to change an important policy less than a year—just over 10 months—from when it will come into effect is causing considerable concern in the industry and calls into question whether such a change could take place in other spheres of renewable policy.
I have always supported the idea that there should be a balance; a mix of different renewable sources. If one source is seriously challenged because there is a sudden change of policy, it begs the question as to whether others will follow.
I cannot quite yet get my head round the cost. I do not quibble with the fact that, for some people, 30p a year, or just over half a penny a week, might make all the difference—although I find it difficult to buy that. However, the other part of the equation that I cannot quite follow is this: if renewable onshore electricity generation is not going to qualify and therefore its future is more under question, and the others, including nuclear, are going to be more expensive, how can that lead to benefits in the longer term for the domestic consumer? The noble Baroness made that point in her final intervention. That has not yet been explained to us, and perhaps a reworking of part of the impact assessment might highlight some of these issues.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, asked whether any use of onshore wind had led to carbon emissions. I just look at the Government’s impact assessment—I may have been slightly critical of it but I will now use it. Paragraph 4.26, on environmental issues, says that option 2, which is the proposal,
“will lead to lower levels of onshore wind deployment and hence increased carbon emissions within the UK power sector relative to the Do Nothing option”.
So the Government themselves believe that it will lead to increased carbon emissions by having lower levels. The impact assessment goes on to say that,
“these will be offset by decreases in emissions elsewhere in the EU within the capped EU-ETS traded emissions sector”.
We must polish up this sentence. Here, the Government say that what they are doing will actually increase carbon emissions but that Europe is going to come to their aid. It is not very often we see a Conservative document saying that the European Union is going to come to our aid. It is probably worth it just for that.
I will share with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, figures that come, I think, from a briefing by the RSPB and which make reference to this. I saw this only this afternoon and have not had a chance to check out the reference, but it suggests that a modern wind turbine has a capacity of 2 megawatts and is expected to avoid emissions of over 1,880 tonnes of carbon dioxide in an average year. I will share that reference with him and, as with all these things, we will trade statistics. However, that and the Government’s own impact assessment suggest that there will be a reduction.
I am not going to press this, but it has been useful to flush out some of the Government’s thinking on this. No doubt we will return to some of these issues when we come to look at periods of grace.
Lord Grantchester
“Renewable and other technologies
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish an assessment of the progress towards decarbonisation of energy supply, including a strategy for the development of renewables and a strategy for energy efficiency within the supply system.”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to propose Amendment 35 and declare an interest, in that I am undertaking a planning application with regards to solar technology.
The Energy Bill is largely focused on securing the value of energy supplies of oil and gas in the North Sea through the creation and operation of the Oil and Gas Authority. It is encouraging and positive. In contrast, the final two clauses bolted on to the Bill do the exact opposite. They seek to bring onshore wind to an early closure, dismantling the least costly form of renewables technology. They undermine investor confidence, as others have stated already tonight and as Ernst & Young reports in its research. They raise alarm bells throughout the renewables sector. These clauses raise wider questions and concerns regarding how wind power, and indeed other renewables, will feature and impact on an overall energy strategy.
Just recently, the Minister’s department issued a further consultation on the feed-in tariff regime for solar power. All this is against the back-cloth of the European Commission’s report in June, which highlighted that the UK is falling behind the trajectory necessary to achieve the UK’s national renewable energy targets, which are so necessary to achieve substantial decarbonisation of the energy supply.
On transport, the aim is for 10% to come from renewable sources by 2020. At present, the UK is at only 3.5%. On heat, the target is for 15% to come from renewables; at present, the figure is only 4.9%. While the electricity sector may presently be on track, there are misgivings that its renewables element will continue slowly to fall following this Bill. Quite simply, this Bill is moving in the wrong direction on both fossil fuels and renewables. It facilitates recovery of oil and gas for generation while reducing support for one form of renewable energy, onshore wind, making more difficult the installation of the cheapest form of renewable energy. This legislation will increase consumer bills.
The help for operators recovering oil and gas in the North Sea is said to include substantial tax breaks. Can the Minister confirm that private contracts between operators and HMRC are being drawn up and include offsetting decommissioning costs against previous tax payments? That is a worrying development set against reduced support for wind renewable technology.
The amendment would require the Government to give an account of how their carbon reduction programme is progressing. They must set out the pathway to achieve the 2020 targets for carbon reduction, for renewables use and for energy efficiency—the so-called 20-20-20 strategy. Discussions are continuing on the EU target for 2030, which is to be set out in Paris at the end of the year. Discussions are focused on a single target for 2030 rather than on several targets. While this is recognised, we nevertheless need to understand that strategies will still be required to meet the overall reduction in a co-ordinated way through carbon reductions in supply, heat and transport and efficiency. While the Government may claim that they can meet their 2020 target, they are certainly unco-ordinated and unclear about what happens beyond that.
The impact of recent government decisions is to reduce support for renewables—onshore wind in this Bill; solar in changed arrangements for that sector—while making it easier to use North Sea oil and gas and easier for fracking ventures. The direction of energy policy in relation to energy decarbonisation is further shown through measures on onshore shale gas and oil, giving rise to considerable doubts about the Government’s overall intentions. This is aggravated by the reported delays in bringing new nuclear power capacity into the system, given the problems at Hinkley Point with EDF. Of considerable concern is the position in relation to state aid. Existing clearance was predicated on the basis of technology-neutral auctions. As the Government no longer appear neutral, is this in jeopardy? Can the Minister confirm that DG Competition, in the Commission, could re-examine their judgment?
All this raises doubts about the trajectory of decarbonised electricity. It is therefore important that as early as possible in this Parliament, the Government make clear their decarbonisation strategy and how far it is working. Let us see their analysis and how they can be so confident that the targets will be met, while they tie the hands of very successful aspects of the renewable energy industry. This amendment would require the Government to produce for Parliament an assessment of their strategy and progress towards decarbonisation of electricity supply. The report should include the Government’s assessment, first, of the expected contribution from renewables and, secondly, of measures designed to improve the overall energy efficiency of the electricity supply, reducing demands for carbon in this manner.
Such an assessment should also cover the broader aspects of energy efficiency—commitments notably absent from this Bill and from government pronouncements since the election. I accept that this is beyond the scope of the Bill and, hence, it is not referred to in the amendment; I therefore refer explicitly only to energy efficiency within the supply system. Energy, and hence carbon, is wasted at each stage: in generation, transmission, distribution and use. In reality, to be comprehensive, such an assessment would also look among other things at the contribution of both nuclear power and demand reduction and redistribution technologies, but this amendment confines itself to those aspects covered by the remit of the Bill.
The objective of the amendment is that Parliament receive a report within six months of the passing of the Act, which will enable us to assess the progress of and plans for decarbonisation of the electricity supply in a holistic manner. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, I would expect them to tell the Climate Change Committee how they propose to report to Parliament about the impact of the Bill and other policy changes on the difficult aim of decarbonising electricity supply. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, my name is also on the amendment, but I must apologise to the Committee for not being here during its long discussions on the previous two amendments, which relate to the contribution that renewables, in particular wind power, make to the reduction of carbon emissions and the decarbonisation of electricity supply.
This clause or something like it is necessary in the Bill because of the consternation that the changes in support for and expectations of wind power, solar power and other renewables have caused within those industries. They are concerned not that, understandably, the Government wish to reduce the subsidy as those technologies become more competitive with conventional energy, but that they should change the pace at which and the terms on which they are doing it at such short notice, and with such drastic impacts on projects conceived and put to planning long before those changes were proposed. Some of that will have been covered in earlier debates, but the fact is that the renewables industry will lose confidence in this Government’s support for and wider commitment to the objectives established under the Climate Change Act, and those we hope will be established at EU and global level, if they are not prepared to continue such support.
If the Government have a better way of reporting to this House and to the country how well they are doing on their carbon reduction targets and their overall trajectory towards reduced carbon use, it would be helpful for the Committee to hear of it, but, in default of that and in reaction to what has been already announced, it is legitimate for us to put within this Bill an obligation on the Secretary of State to produce a report within six months of the passage of the Act. I hope the Minister can accept something like this amendment or indicate what alternative methods of report the Government are now proposing.
Lord Teverson
Although I agree in principle with what this amendment is trying to get at, I have a recollection—I cannot find it, so I may be wrong—that under the Energy Act 2013 the Secretary of State has to give an annual report to Parliament anyway. If that is the case, I just want an assurance from the Minister that that report would cover the sort of issues discussed in this debate. We could have endless reports, but the main thing is to have a key area of reporting where all these things come over at one time, and that Parliament can debate them.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Whitty, for proposing this amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his timely comments, which I will come to. I found some of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, reassuring in that he is pushing us on the Hinkley state aid issue. I hope he is in a position to confirm that it is still the Opposition’s policy to encourage new nuclear because that is what it sounds like to me. I am able to give him the reassurance that we remain confident that the commission’s decision that Hinckley is compliant with state aid rules is legally robust. But of course, on decarbonisation in general, I return to the point that new nuclear is a vital part of the mix. Without it, we would be nowhere near achieving our goals. Therefore, I hope we can get some sense of what the Official Opposition’s policy is on new nuclear—and on new coal. Some things that the new leader has said indicate that he is in favour of regeneration of the coal industry in the United Kingdom, which would undermine what we seek to do. Some clarity on that would certainly be welcome.
The Government are already obliged and will report in the coming months on their progress towards decarbonisation of the energy supply, the development of renewables and the development of energy efficiency. We have obligations under the Climate Change Act, the EU renewable energy directive and the EU energy efficiency directive to report on these topics in the coming months. Therefore, the Government cannot support the amendment, which could lead to unnecessary duplication. You do not fatten a pig by continuously weighing it and we already have these three obligations, which I will refer to in more length.
The Committee on Climate Change reports annually on the Government’s progress towards meeting carbon budgets, which includes an assessment of progress towards decarbonisation of the energy supply. Under Section 37 of the Climate Change Act, we are obliged to respond to the Committee on Climate Change’s annual progress report by 15 October each year. That remains true this year. We will publish our response to the Committee on Climate Change’s 2015 progress report by that date, and that will specifically address progress towards decarbonising the energy supply.
On renewables, the 2013 Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan—which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was referring to—set out our ambition of achieving at least 30% of electricity from renewables in 2020. We are on course to achieve that, with renewables representing almost 20% of generation in 2014. We will also report by the end of this year on progress against our 2013-14 interim targets as part of the EU renewable energy directive.
Finally, we are committed to energy efficiency as a vital element of meeting our statutory goals on fuel poverty and climate change. We set out our strategy in 2012 and updated it in 2013. We will report by the end of April 2016 on progress achieved towards national energy efficiency targets, as part of the EU energy efficiency directive. In the light of those already substantial obligations and the reassurance that I have given, as well as the work that is done in the department, which takes considerable time, I hope that the noble Lord proposing the amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for being keen to hear about our policies. I was questioning only whether state aid issues could be re-examined by the commission if the UK appeared to divert from its stated neutrality towards renewable technologies. I am heartened by his reply, notably that the Committee on Climate Change will press forward with its annual reports to which the Government are mandated to reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Lord Whitty
“Decarbonisation obligation
(1) Within six months of the closure of the renewables obligation on 31 March 2016 for onshore wind generating stations, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations for a decarbonisation obligation.
(2) A “decarbonisation obligation” means the level of carbon intensity of electricity generation in the United Kingdom that a relevant supplier may not exceed in respect of the total kilowatt hours of electricity that it supplies to customers in England and Wales during a given year.
(3) In setting a decarbonisation obligation, the Secretary of State must first obtain and take account of advice from the Committee on Climate Change.
(4) In this section, “relevant supplier” means electricity suppliers supplying electricity in England and Wales.”
Lord Whitty
In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Foulkes, I will speak to Amendment 35A. As we have just discussed, electricity decarbonisation is a key component of our carbon reduction strategy. The amendment would provide a mechanism whereby decarbonisation by supplier is built in and becomes transparent, and is therefore enforceable supplier by supplier. It would require the Secretary of State to issue regulations to place on each electricity supplier—subject to definition in the regulations—a maximum level of carbon intensity in the electricity that it supplies within England and Wales. This decarbonisation obligation would be a proportion taken over the year of the carbon content of the electricity supply to its consumers over the course of that year.
The amendment of course does not specify exactly how the obligation would be expressed nor the level, nor whether there would be a single figure or whether that would be varied supplier by supplier depending on their pre-existing achievement of reductions in carbon intensity. That is a matter for consultation prior to the regulations being promulgated. The only specification in the amendment is that the Secretary of State needs to take the advice on this issue of the Committee on Climate Change—I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has joined us at an appropriate point. Therefore, that would be the benchmark against which the Secretary of State calculates the requirement. It is noticeable that the amendment would apply only in England and Wales. There would be different arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The amendment would give a crucial mechanism to the Secretary of State for ensuring that the pace of decarbonisation in the electricity supply was maintained, transparent and understood supplier by supplier. It would be an important additional weapon in the Secretary of State’s armoury. The Minister has assured us that we are on track for 30% of renewables by 2020. We need to go much further than that to meet what will be the requirements for carbon reductions over the years beyond 2020. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to the amendment, although I do not pretend to be an expert on exactly how it would work. There was a great celebration in February this year when our Prime Minister, to whom I give full credit, made a declaration jointly with Nick Clegg, the then Deputy Prime Minister and Ed Miliband the then leader of the Official Opposition. They made pledges through the Green Alliance, one of which was to accelerate the transition to a competitive energy-efficient, low-carbon economy and to end the use of unabated coal for power generation.
That was a fantastic declaration at the beginning of a general election campaign when politics was running high and competition between political parties was starting to move into a more confrontational stage. Yet three party leaders came together and said that low carbon and taking out unabated coal would be key. I see the amendment as something that could move us towards that solution in a concrete way. That is why I support it so strongly.
The Energy Act 2013 started off being about decarbonisation. It made it clear that the Secretary of State had the ability to—and in parliamentary Bill language that presumed that the Secretary of State would—declare a decarbonisation target in 2016 when the Committee on Climate Change came forward with its recommendations for the fifth carbon budget. My question to the Minister on this key area in meeting Climate Change Act obligations is whether the Secretary of State intends next year to follow that through in the carbon budget that is recommended and the one that is subsequently agreed.
The other attractive thing about this amendment is that it tries to find a least-cost way through to decarbonisation. As previous debates have shown, in this House we are united in wanting to decarbonise our economy at least cost. We all know that that is important to consumers, for fuel poverty and to the competitiveness of our economy. This amendment finds a way to do that.
I welcome the amendment and I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has put forward. I will be interested to learn from the Minister how the Government intend to take forward the pledge the Prime Minister made in February. Will the Government move next year to a decarbonisation target for 2030 and, as part of that, will they make sure that coal really does disappear from our system as soon as that is practically possible?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, it is not for the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change to comment much on the means whereby we reach the targets which have been set by the committee. That is not its role. The committee’s role is to set the targets and to insist that they are met. That is one of the difficulties of being the chairman because my instinct is to comment on all these things with enthusiasm and some pretty clear views, but that is not what I am statutorily allowed to do.
However, it might help the Minister if I say this. This may be a formulation that works; I am not sure. There are complications in it which might lead the Government not to want to do it. I want to say a word about a decarbonisation target, which the Committee on Climate Change has recommended. It has done so because a decarbonisation target would give security to those who are investing in low carbon technology, and above all in low carbon generation. One of the problems that all Governments have to face is that the timetable of private industry is very tight. First there is the timetable for how long a particular managing director will be in place and what is going to happen over the next two or three years—I am told that it is generally about three years. The second timetable is an important one, covering the length of time major investment takes between thinking about something and actually delivering it.
One difficulty—it is one which the Committee on Climate Change emphasised in its report to Parliament this year—is that most of the measures we have in place will fall off the cliff in 2020. We are now talking about “tomorrow” in the investment cycle because people often have an investment cycle which lasts certainly for five years and very often for seven or eight years. The committee sought to ask the Government to ensure that we knew where we were going to be in a progressive way after 2020. The Government have made it clear that certain things will continue, but not how much and how long. That security is important for investment.
The second point is that it is occasionally the belief of all politicians that if they promise something in 2050, everyone will believe it and proceed to get there. But I remember an embarrassing debate in this House when I pointed out that the previous Labour Government had an energy Bill from which they had removed every date except 2050, and I worked out that there was not a Member of the Government who was likely to be alive when the one promise that had been made would be delivered. That is a dangerous position because if we are to be taken seriously, we ought to make promises that will be delivered at least in our likely lifetimes.
What I want to put to the Minister is simply this: we need to have some sort of interim point between 2020 and 2050 towards which people can work with some confidence, and we have suggested a carbon intensity target for 2030 entirely on that basis. I hope that the party opposite will not be upset by this, but one of the reasons I want the target is because I am a capitalist and I do not want to judge what is going to be the best way of achieving it by 2030; in other words, I want to be as unrestrictive as I can. I just want to deliver the ends, and that is why I always talk about targets, not means. I do not know what mixture of means will enable us to reach the target, and that is why I am less enthusiastic about those who insist upon this proportion from renewables, that proportion from other low carbon technologies and this proportion from nuclear. I have always felt that a portfolio is what we want, and if possible I want an unprescriptive target because we do not know the ways in which we are going to achieve it. But we must give people the confidence that if they pursue those ways, there will be a proper return from the market on the investment that they have carried through. That is why a carbon intensity target is a valuable thing. I hope that the Government will wish to do that in 2016, for reasons we all now know. A carbon intensity target would be unprescriptive, but it would give real confidence.
This amendment, on the other hand, is much more precise. It gives a role to the Committee on Climate Change, for which I thank the noble Lord, and I am sure that if we were asked to carry through this role, we would do it to the best of our ability. But I wonder whether this particular mechanism is the best one. There are complications which the Government might want to think about, but I hope that in discussing it, the Government will not cast aside the need—I think it is that—for a decarbonisation target for 2030 to give people the confidence to plan. It is no good saying that they know that our emissions must be cut by 80% by 2050. Frankly, it is true and statutorily based, and we all think it is important, but it is not going to drive investment. That is why a decarbonisation target for 2030 is important. I doubt whether this is the right way forward, but I am pleased that it has been tabled as an amendment, not least in order to ask the Government to think hard about the needs of investment and confidence.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for introducing this amendment and to the other noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it—or if not directly in favour, at least in favour of us having a debate about decarbonisation. I recall that a similar amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan during the Committee stage of the Energy Bill in 2013. We had a good debate at the time, and the arguments which were put forward were important then and are even more important now. I say that because we all engaged with the Energy Bill in good faith. We raised our concerns and we went forward on the basis that we hoped that we had a system that may be a transition to something more market-based and slightly less interventionist in order to encourage us to decarbonise our electricity system.
I apologise for stating the obvious, but the reason electricity is so important is that once it is fully or substantively decarbonised, it can then be used to decarbonise transport and heat in an effective way. It is not the only way, but it is one way. It is the sector with possibly the most commercially available technologies and certainly the widest range of known technologies, certainly at this stage, to help us. That is why electricity is focused on and why we have a 30% target for renewable electricity as opposed to 10% or 12% in the heat and transport sectors. It is right to focus on electricity.
This idea is definitely worthy of merit and I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, when he says that we have in the past debated a broader definition of the decarbonisation obligation or decarbonisation target. In fact, that was rather exhaustively dealt with in the debates around the Energy Bill in 2013. The way it was left was that the Government may introduce a decarbonisation target for 2030 in line with the fifth carbon budget being set. I very much look forward to hearing some strong words from the Minister stating that that is still the Government’s intention: that a decarbonisation target will be set in 2016 once we have that fifth carbon budget in place.
For all the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Deben, Lord Teverson and Lord Whitty, we lack a moment of clarity to help shake people’s investment decisions beyond 2020. We have renewable targets to 2020, as part of the European renewables directive, but beyond 2020 there is big uncertainty as to what low-carbon technologies, if any, will be supported by the Government. Therefore, there needs to be a framework. Why I like the idea of a decarbonisation obligation on the Government and on suppliers is because it does exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, which is to create a market-based system.
I often find myself wondering whether I am Alice who has stepped through the looking glass. Here we are in a world where the Government—a Conservative Government—are presiding over virtually the renationalisation of the energy system. There is no element of the energy system that is not now reliant on the Secretary of State to sign a contract of some sort or another, perhaps with the possible exception of some of the interconnectors, but even there it is quite highly regulated. Now any new clean capacity needs to be signed off by the Secretary of State with a contract for difference, and all the existing capacity receives capacity payments also through the Secretary of State’s gift. Here we are, very oddly, presiding over pretty much a state-run energy system, and here I am on the Labour Benches saying that we need a much more market-based system that allows more choice and for capital to flow to the most cost-effective ways.
It is an odd situation but that is where we are. So I press the Minister to help us to understand whether the Government share our objective, which is to move towards a slightly less interventionist system with more ability for a broader set of players to dictate how we meet our targets, which means the Government setting the framework, and being clear about our objectives, but allowing a wider pool of people to find those solutions for us at least cost.
Amendment 35A is an interesting idea which proposes that rather than the Government taking on the obligation and the target, they should be passed down to the supply companies. It has some merit. It is worth noting that suppliers have been obliged to report on the carbon intensity of their electricity supply for some years now. They have a fuel disclosure requirement and an infrastructure and reporting mechanism that enables them to do that with certificates of origin. That enables them to calculate the carbon intensity of their electricity annually and report to Ofgem. Those numbers then probably sit on a website or in a document. Very little attention is paid to them, which is a great shame because we are encouraging these data to be collected but doing very little with them. If we were to look at those numbers, sadly we would see that carbon intensity has remained stubbornly similar over the past decade. We did very well in decarbonising when we had the dash for gas and replaced a lot of our old coal, but since then carbon intensity has just moved around, largely dictated by commodity prices where gas prices are higher than coal or vice versa. So there has not really been a grip on carbon intensity.
An obligation such as this would address that problem and mean that the full range of decarbonisation options, including fuel switching and phasing out of coal, would be incentivised in the most logical way forward. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He and I have worked previously on the phasing out of coal and the use of performance standards to make sure that our old coal, in particular, is phased out in an orderly and certain way so that we can make room for clean investment. A decarbonisation obligation would help us to ensure that that transition out of coal took place. It is not the only way it can be done, but it would be a market-friendly way to meet the obligation because there would be an incentive not to purchase the coal that would count against the target. It would help to make it harder to hit the targets. The other benefit is that it would help renewables to stand on their own two feet and compete alongside other technologies. We would genuinely see which are both affordable and able to be supported by the general public.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for moving the amendment, but perhaps I may turn first to the opening comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Although I am, as she will know, her great admirer in the area of climate change, I cannot allow the allegation to go unchecked and unanswered that we are in the business of nationalising the energy supply. It shows considerable chutzpah to come up with such an argument in view of what happened at the weekend. It is far from the truth. The area is certainly highly regulated but I make no apology for that. It needs to be so.
We are committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom continues to do its part to tackle climate change in line with the Climate Change Act, which, of course, has legal backing and legal obligations. As I indicated earlier, we will respond to the progress report; as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, we will do so by 15 October, as we do annually.
Decarbonisation remains a clear goal of the Government. Emissions from carbon intensity fell by 12% in 2014, according to the Committee on Climate Change, and we are very much wedded to that. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to the commitment of the Prime Minister and our obligations in relation to unabated coal. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, when she said that there is a part for all forms of energy except unabated coal. That is certainly right and I would not dissent from it. We must do this as cost effectively as possible to ensure that our energy is secure and affordable as well as low carbon, as I indicated previously.
Locking ourselves into an expensive and inflexible target for the power sector is not the way to do that. There are just too many things that we cannot predict about how the energy system will develop up to 2030. The costs of getting it wrong would be picked up by consumers for decades to come. The amendment as set out would, in effect, require the Government to introduce an additional power sector target, in the form of an obligation on electricity suppliers in England and Wales. The manifesto on which the Government were elected clearly stated that we will not support additional power sector targets.
Noble Lords will know that the subject of setting a decarbonisation target has previously been debated in this House, as has been indicated, on at least two occasions: during the passage of the Energy Bill in 2013 and of the Infrastructure Bill in 2015. I therefore know that noble Lords will be familiar with the arguments against setting a target such as this. I agree that investors want to know that we have clear, credible and affordable plans. However, the CBI has said that clarity on future financial support for low-carbon electricity will be more important in driving investment than targets. That is why we have said that we will set out totals for the levy control framework beyond 2020, providing a basis for electricity investment into the next decade. That is why we have also said that we will set out plans in the autumn on future contracts for difference allocation rounds.
For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Teverson
The Minister will forgive me if I did not catch this properly, but are the Government saying that they will not undertake the clause in the Energy Act 2013 that says that the Secretary of State “may”—with the presumption that the Secretary of State “would”—set a decarbonisation target for the electricity sector for 2030? Did he say that the Government will not do that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
No, my Lords. I was saying that we would not support additional power sector targets. As I understand it, that target is already in existence.
Baroness Worthington
The target is not in existence. The power was created in the Energy Act to allow the Secretary of State to set a target, but it prevents the Government setting a target until 2016. That is the only thing on the statute book. I encourage the Minister to be very precise in his wording. I will have to read back over Hansard. The expectation is that the Government will set a target, but they certainly are not required to. We would like clarity on what the intention is.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I appreciate that point. On the clause as set out, I have made it clear that we will not come forward with this additional obligation. The manifesto is absolutely clear that there will be no power sector target. That is the position of the Government.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, if I understand that right it is very disappointing. I can understand the objection, or at least the querying by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as to whether we need a detailed mechanism for setting carbon intensity coefficients by supply, but he argued very persuasively, and has done before, for a decarbonisation target for 2030. That is why that was written into the 2013 Act and why there was an expectation and general indication from the Minister’s predecessors that there would be a target set in 2016, but only in the context of the carbon budget, which they are obliged by the Climate Change Act to come forward with. I did not accept that argument, but I understood it in terms of the timing. There was some considerable debate about that during what became the passage of the 2013 Act.
It is very disappointing, not only to us in this House but to the various industry operators, including the supply companies, that there seems to be an abandonment of that commitment in what the Minister has interpreted from the Conservative Party manifesto. As I well know, manifestos are pretty flexible things. I hope that he can consult with his colleagues as to whether it actually meant that, or whether there was some more room—
Lord Teverson
I am not quite sure how to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this, but having read the Conservative manifesto many times and having it on my iPad on iBooks, I have not seen this obligation not to have a target anywhere in it. Has he?
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I am not quite such a conscientious and diligent reader of the manifestos of various parties—even my own—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The best thing we can ask the Minister to do is to go back and talk to his colleagues—whether it was in the manifesto or not—about whether they are definitely now not going ahead with what was allowed for in the 2013 Act. If that is the case, there are ramifications. I understand why the Minister is opposed to the mechanism proposed in the amendment. I would have thought that having set the 2030 target for decarbonisation would be a useful addition to the armoury, as the Committee on Climate Change and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, advocated. If the Minister feels that that would be too much interference in the market mechanisms, I understand that. It would still be up to the supply companies how they met that obligation and what kind of technologies and contracts they entered into. The market is still operating there. I understand and accept that the Minister is not prepared to go along with that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
To be helpful, in view of the fact that there is a degree of uncertainty about what the manifesto says specifically—not least with me—I am happy to go back and have a look at it. We can come back to it on Report to ensure that I have understood the position correctly. I undertake to do that and we can pick it up on Report if that is helpful.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, that was very generous of the Minister. I thank him very much, as I think the Committee will as a whole. Before I withdraw the amendment, I will just comment on something that the Minister said on markets and nationalisation. When the then Energy Bill of 2013 first came before us, the noble Lord’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, described it as “Gosplan”. There is something in that. There is nothing from any element in the Labour Party that goes as far as that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
“Statement on costs of non-compliance with EU renewable target
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the estimated cost to the taxpayer should the United Kingdom not comply with the 2020 EU renewable target.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, that was an interesting debate. It has slightly changed the context for the next two amendments, if that does indeed transpire. We look forward to getting clarity on this. It hinges on the word “new”. In fact, so much of the Bill hinges on the word “new”, because it was a manifesto commitment to have no new subsidies for onshore wind, which could have been interpreted in lots of different ways. I think there was a manifesto commitment that there will be no new targets. We need to start to understand how the Government use that word.
As I have mentioned, Amendment 35B seeks to make up for one of the biggest holes in the impact assessment, which is to consider the implications of this new change of policy. Indeed, when we come on to talk about the last amendment, our concern about the transition to the contracts for difference regime is that this will have an impact on the taxpayer that is not yet being monetised, described or communicated by the Government.
Amendment 35B would simply require:
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament on the estimated cost … should the United Kingdom not comply with the 2020 EU renewable target”.
Of course, the wording is not written in a way that it should be in a final version. However, it is an appropriate moment to raise the point that it is not the case that we can simply change our policies without due concern and reference to the implications if we were then to miss our EU requirements. As I have said in previous debates, there would be two implications. First, we would be forced to purchase renewables certificates from other countries. Let us just think about that for a second. That would mean us sending our money to other countries to purchase their investments, which would make them have more jobs and supply chains, and help them to decarbonise. We would be spending our hard-earned cash on their development of a very successful renewables industry. That does not seem like sensible policy to me, but that is what would happen if we decided simply to buy our way out of this target in the mistaken idea that this would somehow be better value for money for the Government. I would like to hear from the Minister whether there is any truth in the speculation we have seen in the media that that is one of the Government’s ideas—that they would be prepared to buy their way to compliance in terms of the targets, and what that would cost us. Secondly, we may be fined if we are in non-compliance. I would like clarity from the Minister on what the penalty regime looks like if we fail to meet our EU renewables target.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving this amendment. She is right: we are continuing to make progress towards the 2020 renewables target of 15% of final energy consumption from renewable sources. The provisional figure released on 25 June showed 6.3% of final energy consumption for 2013 and 2014 came from renewable sources, against a target level of 5.4%. The Government set out their plan to meet the target in 2010. We are on track to meet the next interim milestone. In fact, as I say, the provisional figure indicates that we are ahead of it. We have a clear plan for meeting the target. I wish to say something about the specific areas of heat and transport which the noble Baroness mentioned, where there certainly are challenges. First, in relation to heat, under existing schemes the Government have supported almost 33,000 homes and 10,000 businesses, schools, farms and other organisations with new renewable heating systems. That is on top of the generation of 3.4 terawatt hours of eligible heat—enough to heat the equivalent of more than 225,000 United Kingdom homes for a year.
On transport, the Government are investing more than £500 million over the next five years in making ultra-low emission vehicles more accessible to families and businesses across the country. I think our record on this bears comparison with other EU countries, and across government departments we are putting in a lot of effort on this. As noble Lords will appreciate, the lead department on ultra-low emission vehicles is the Department for Transport but the Department of Energy and Climate Change is, of course, represented in that process and we are pushing forward with it.
We have a clear plan for meeting the target and already have many reporting requirements. I cannot accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response although I do not believe that it adequately addressed the points that I raised, particularly on vehicles and fuel which are obviously two separate things when it comes to energy. We can have as many zero-carbon vehicles as we like but if they are powered by electricity that is generated at 400 grams per kilowatt hour, that is not a solution. Equally, it is true that the escalator is frozen. I heard nothing about whether or not that will be lifted in order for us to hit the 10% figure. I hope the Minister will write to me giving a detailed response to the points that I made. I do not believe that I got the detail I sought.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I will certainly write to the noble Baroness on those points.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister. On the basis that we will continue this discussion and I will be in touch on the impact assessment and the absence of detail within it, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Baroness Worthington
“Contracts for Difference
After section 13(3) of the Energy Act 2013 insert—“(3A) An allocation round must be held no less than annually in each year in which the UK is not on target to meet the 2020 EU renewable energy target.””
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, Amendment 35C would insert a new clause after Clause 60 to require that an allocation round should be held for the CFD—contracts for difference—process at least annually for each year that the UK is not on target to meet the 2020 EU renewable energy target. As is evident from the previous debate, there is some debate about how we measure that, but we still have to make quite a bit of investment to get to our targets, and we must ensure that we have a policy framework that is fit for purpose to enable that investment to be made.
In the Energy Act 2013, we undertook to transition from the renewables obligation to contracts for difference. There was cross-party support for the idea that contracts for difference would be a material improvement: they would give greater certainty for investors and enable us to move to a technology-neutral auctioning system, which would allow costs to come down. On that basis, the Energy Act received cross-party support and Royal Assent. However, things have changed; as has been pointed out, the Government have changed. Maybe we should not be surprised about what the Government are now doing but that certainly does not mean that we should agree with it. I feel that there is quite a degree of concern across the different parts of the House about the Government’s current trajectory.
We have been told that there will be a statement on whether there will be a contracts for difference round this year. My understanding is that if we were to be ready for an auction in the autumn, we should have already made announcements, so I would specifically like to hear from the Minister when we will have a statement on contracts for difference allocation rounds this year and what the likely date for the next round is. Here, we get to the nub of the interpretation of the word “new” and, indeed, of the word “subsidy”. If the Government are going to stick to interpreting their manifesto commitment to mean that no new subsidies for onshore wind includes contracts for difference, we need to know that now, or sooner rather than later, because it will have huge implications. State aid clearance was gained for the contracts for difference system, but that was worded in such a way as to encourage the Government to move to technology-neutral auctions as soon as possible. It would be highly problematic if the Government ruled out one of the least costly forms of renewable energy from the CFD system; the European agreement to give it state aid clearance would need to be looked at again if there were to be such a substantial change. That would cause delay across the piece. Nobody wants to see yet more uncertainty introduced into this picture, and it worries me greatly that we are going to hear in the autumn that there will be no contracts for difference for onshore wind from now on. If that is so, we need to hear about it sooner rather than later. Onshore wind should continue to be considered, alongside all the other technologies, in those hopefully technology-neutral auctions and we should move towards that as soon as possible.
We need to see onshore wind continue within the CFD process, not least because there is possibly a misunderstanding that onshore wind will continue to keep producing for ever more once it is put into the ground. In fact, that is not the case. The commercial reality is that, once you have a wind farm, you are quite able to upgrade it: you can use the existing footfall and the existing site but then upgrade either the nacelle or the entire turbine to get more power out from the same land area. These sorts of recommissioning projects could be completely ruled out if onshore wind renewables do not survive into a contract for difference regime. That risks around 1.5 gigawatts that is currently being generated from onshore wind coming offline by 2025, with no ability to repower. For that reason alone, we need to see some clarity about the role of onshore wind in the CFD regime going forward. However, it is not just the repowering; there are definitely options for continuing cost-effective deployment of onshore wind in those communities that are happy to accept it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for moving this amendment. She will know that, as I indicated by my letter of 6 September, we are looking at decommissioning on Report, so there may be an opportunity to look at some of the specific points that she raises then. I am certainly happy to do that.
In relation to Amendment 35C, I acknowledge that it is important that developers and investors have some foresight as to the frequency of contracts for difference allocation rounds. However, this must be balanced with the levy control framework budget available, which, as noble Lords know, is funded by a levy on consumer bills. The United Kingdom continues to make progress towards the renewables target, but the interaction of those two is important.
Committing to annual contracts for difference allocations rounds, even only in certain circumstances, would inhibit the Government’s ability to respond to evidence on levels of deployment in renewable electricity generation, costs to consumers and opportunities in other sectors. That said, as the noble Baroness rightly said, we are committed to a statement in the autumn, so that decisions on any future allocations of contracts for difference will be taken in due course. On the specific point on state aid approval, we remain consistent with the contracts for difference state aid approval. If our future plans should have an impact on our state aid clearance, we would seek an early discussion with the European Commission. However, as I understand it, that is not the case at the moment.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would unnecessarily commit the Government to a course of action which would neither benefit the consumer nor provide any certainty to renewable energy generators or investors. I have indicated that I am happy for us to look at the specific point about decommissioning on Report. We are committed to our energy targets and continue to make strong progress towards meeting them. I do not know the specific date of the statement we will be making in the autumn—indeed, I do not think it has been fixed at this stage—but I hope that gives reassurance that we will be making a statement about the contracts for difference regime. Our intention is to set out plans in the autumn in respect of the next contracts for difference allocation round, but we do not believe that an annual round is necessarily appropriate.
For those reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment and respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, to withdraw it.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister. I find it quite curious that an amendment asking for greater certainty in CFD allocations is described as creating more uncertainty yet the Minister’s statement, which contains no information at all about when we might expect another round of allocation, supposedly increases certainty. I just do not understand how that works. The autumn is arguably already upon us. I hope that the Government’s interpretation of “autumn” does not mean 31 December and that we will see the information come to us while we are still considering the Bill, in the autumn. That statement needs to be made in respect of and is highly relevant to the Bill.
I am grateful to the Minister for picking up on the point about decommissioning. However, given that we now have an extra day in which we will recommit to Grand Committee in the Moses Room, I wonder whether we could have those amendments in time for then. It will be only a matter of days before Report. If those decommissioning amendments could at least be made available for that day, it would certainly help to alleviate some of the pressure on Report. I feel that we are stacking up quite a lot of issues for Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
On that point, I am happy to endeavour to make the amendments available. What I cannot do, and I had given due notice to Peers who participated in the debate, is undertake that they are debated on that day. That was not in the agreement we have in relation to the recommittal day. I will of course endeavour to table the amendments as soon as possible.
Baroness Worthington
Given that the Minister has been so excellent in communicating with us in Committee, I am happy to take it in good faith that he will do his very best. I am sure that will produce results and on that basis, and on the basis that we will revisit this after Recess, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
“(aa) regulations under section 27(8), or”
Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the draft regulations will require private sector landlords, from 1 October 2015, to have at least one smoke alarm installed on every storey of their rental property which is used as living accommodation, and a carbon monoxide alarm in any room used as living accommodation where solid fuel is used. After that, the landlord must make sure that the alarms are in working order at the start of each new tenancy. The regulations have been brought before this House because the Government want to increase the safety of private sector tenants. Setting a minimum standard for the testing and installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms will reduce the risks that tenants face from fire and carbon monoxide poisoning in the home. We estimate that the new regulations will save 26 lives and nearly 700 injuries per year.
Local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the regulations. An authority will be required to issue a remedial notice to a landlord if they have reasonable grounds to believe that they are in breach. If the landlord fails to comply with the notice the local housing authority must, if the occupier consents, arrange the necessary action to ensure that the property is compliant. The local authority can also levy a civil penalty charge of up to £5,000 on the landlord. The levying of a penalty by a local authority is a last resort in the enforcement process. The landlord will have 28 days to achieve compliance where a remedial notice is served. If they comply within that period, no fine can be levied. The regulations aim to save lives and not catch landlords out.
I want to respond to concerns about a lack of publicity to make landlords aware of the regulations coming into force. The report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the department to raise awareness of the new draft regulations in good time for the planned commencement date of 1 October 2015. We have done this. The regulations were announced in two departmental press releases in March, giving more than six months’ notice before the planned commencement date. A comprehensive awareness campaign about the regulations, co-ordinated by the Chief Fire Officers Association, also ran from May to July and is estimated to have reached more than 8 million people. All 46 fire and rescue authorities raised awareness of free alarms available for distribution to landlords through various methods such as press releases, information on their websites and social media.
The department also published two explanatory booklets, one for landlords and one for local authorities, on the GOV.UK website on 4 September to provide helpful information to landlords in understanding and complying with the regulations. Nothing new is introduced; the requirements of the draft regulations are simply explained. I acknowledge that the timing of the parliamentary debates means that there is a short period between scrutiny and the regulations coming into force but the debates as scheduled are the earliest allowed by the parliamentary timetable.
Successive Governments and local fire and rescue authorities have made extensive use of non-regulatory approaches to increase the uptake of smoke alarms, including a series of highly effective public campaigns, such as “Fire Kills”, and home fire safety checks. I would add here that the “Alarms4Life” campaign stated the date as being in October. However, private rented sector tenants remain less likely to be protected by a working smoke alarm than any other tenants. The department has also piloted alternatives to regulative approaches to increase the installation of carbon monoxide alarms. However, there are still high-risk properties without these alarms installed.
The majority of landlords act responsibly and protect their tenants with working alarms. However, a minority of private sector landlords have proved resistant to safety advice and recommended best practice. That is why the Government decided that it was necessary to introduce the draft regulations to protect the tenants of these landlords. A regulatory approach to the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms was discussed as part of the Government’s discussion paper, Review of Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector, and the majority of responses were in favour. The regulations aim to increase the safety of tenants by ensuring that they are not subject to death, poisoning or injury by a lack of smoke or carbon monoxide warning alarms. The Government have funded local fire and rescue authorities to purchase a number of alarms for free distribution to landlords, encouraging all landlords to act responsibly towards their tenants as well as helping them comply with the regulations.
At this point, perhaps I might correct a comment that I made in the previous debate on a question about Airbnb from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I said that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 did not apply to Airbnb accommodation. The order applies to houses or flats where the premises are not occupied as a private dwelling; therefore, in the case of Airbnb, we consider that the order would apply during the period when paying guests are staying. I therefore apologise that that comment was misleading. I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, earlier and I will be writing to him to clarify this in more detail. I will make arrangements to place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House, which will ensure that this correction is recorded.
The Government are committed to creating a bigger and better private rented sector. The regulations will set a new benchmark for alarm installation in private sector properties, making tenants safer and increasing property standards while still supporting good landlords by not overregulating and stifling the sector with unnecessary red tape. The regulations prove the Government’s commitment to continue improvement and create a private rented sector that works for everyone, and I commend them to the House.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this statutory instrument, I first declare an interest in that I have residential properties which are let in the village that I live in in Suffolk, and the regulations will apply to them. That is in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
I got involved in this last Monday, when I suddenly realised, because I was told, that this statutory instrument was to be brought into full force on 1 October this year. I heard about it because the Government had issued a guidance note on how it would all work on 4 September, the Friday before, which was three weeks before the regulations were due to come into force. In a question and answer section, the guidance note states:
“Is there a ‘grace’ period for landlords?”
The reply is:
“If the regulations are approved, landlords are expected to be compliant from 1 October 2015 when the regulations will come into force. There will be no grace period after this date to install the required alarms”.
That is a pretty extraordinary statement considering that it was made such a short time before the regulations come into force.
My noble friend has made a lot of how everybody knew about the regulations, saying that there has been a great deal of publicity. My humble queries last Monday have produced a huge response. The British Property Federation points out that the regulations cover 4.4 million properties, but landlords are being asked to implement them in three weeks. Quite out of the blue, I received an email dated 9 September from British Gas in response to the Minister’s point about the effectiveness of the Government’s consultation. It states that,
“these Regulations are intended to come into force on the 1st October, without a grace period and with immediate effect. At British Gas, we are concerned that levels of awareness of the new regulations are currently very low, and that landlords may continue to unwittingly put their tenants’ lives at risk by not being aware of the new legislation … We recently conducted research with nearly 1,000 landlords in England through our long-term partnership with the housing charity Shelter, and found that 59% of landlords are not aware that these Regulations are due to come into force on the 1st October”.
That is pretty good evidence. As a result, there have been many applications to delay not necessarily bringing the order into force, but when it has to be complied with.
I say straight away—probably no one in the House would disagree—that we all think that the regulations are very sensible. They are needed. They should apply to all let properties—and probably, eventually, all owner-occupied properties as well. The intention is perfectly sound. I am complaining about the astonishing level of bad government in the way in which this has been put forward. It is very bad administration: Whitehall at its worst.
After I had made my comments on Monday, my noble friend very kindly invited me to see her in her department. I went with interest and expectation, but it was very unclear what the invitation was for, because she had nothing to tell me except that the Government intended to bring the regulations into force. What she said, interestingly—this was on Wednesday last week—was that she was going to lay the order that night in the Chamber. Actually, when I got back here, I found that that was not true and that the usual channels had attempted to inform her of that, but the message had not got through. That is another example which raises pretty good questions about the administration of her department—no fault of hers; I acquit her completely of that.
Then the decision was made to lay the order today. Interestingly, there was suddenly an ad hoc committee in the House of Commons, which met at 4.30 this afternoon to consider the regulations—an ad hoc committee, not a standing committee. I went along. It was very interesting. It did not take very long; the whole thing was dealt with in seven minutes, four minutes of which was taken by my honourable friend Mr Brandon Lewis, the housing Minister. I should say that Mr Lewis was kind enough to ring me over the weekend to say that he understood that I had a problem with the regulations, so I explained in some detail what it was. He undertook to consider it, which I thought was rather encouraging. Perhaps one should never be encouraged by undertakings. Anyway, he put the order forward. The opposition spokesperson got up and said how important the regulations are, as I have just done, and how sad it was that so many people die from carbon monoxide poisoning. There was not a squeak from anyone else. Immediately, the question was put, up everybody jumped up and off they went. That was the procedure in the House of Commons.
One of our functions in this House is to see that government is properly carried out and that legislation is sound, properly thought through and brought through in such a way that it can be properly implemented. A number of questions have been raised about the regulations which I will not mention now, because it would take too long. All I say is that there is far from being happiness and agreement that the Government have run the thing properly.
I shall cite three different bodies. The British Property Federation states that the compliance date should be postponed until April 2016. The Association of Residential Letting Agents, responsible for 1.42 million properties, states:
“It is not possible to undertake this amount of work before the regulations come into force”,
and that,
“all existing tenancies should be allowed to have until 1st January 2016 to comply”.
It also raises the point, which seems to me sound, that to have to inspect on the day a new tenancy is formed is rather impractical. An organisation called Your Move said that the matter was so unclear that,
“We had mistakenly thought the legislation applied to new tenancies only”.
I may say that the CLA—of which I am a member, incidentally—thought the same, and has asked for it to apply to new tenancies from 1 October, but from 1 April 2016 for existing tenancies.
The way in which this has been handled is thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is not good government. This Government have a responsibility not just for working out the right policies but for doing so in a proper way. It is not being done in a proper way, and that is lamentable.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I hate having to rise to criticise my Ministers on the Front Bench, particularly the noble Baroness who is to reply to this debate. She has a well-deserved reputation for being extremely knowledgeable, not least about local government, and for dealing very well with matters. However, she has not been at her best in handling this business.
My noble friend the Minister started very eloquently this time on the way that information had been given to the fire authorities and how apparently they have rushed round the country telling tenants what they should and should not do. In the last debate in Grand Committee, I took my brief from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and asked a number of very specific questions about the points that that committee made. The Minister did not answer one of those questions. Indeed, she did not even refer to the fact that I had made a speech at all. I had become a sort of non-person. I would gently say to her that it is usually a mistake when one of your colleagues makes a speech not to at least acknowledge he has done so, even if you are unable to give convincing answers to the questions. I was reminded earlier this evening that Lord Whitelaw always used to brief new Ministers and say, “Even if you haven’t a clue what the answer is, refer to the speech they made and then most Members will be reasonably satisfied”.
Slightly by chance later in the proceedings, partly as the result of questions from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, on the other Benches and someone else, we were told:
“We have decided to issue new guidance in the form of explanatory booklets, one for local authorities and one for landlords. We also want to update How to Rent”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. GC 177.]
How to Rent was the first of four documents referred to by the Secondary Legislation Committee, all of which it said needed revision. The situation when we met last Monday on these regulations, which launched in March and which the department had the whole summer to deal with, was that the department was going to revise and issue guidance and all these things. We are now told that it has been informing the fire brigade, which has been rushing round telling everyone, although my noble friend Lord Marlesford suggested that that was less than entirely accurate. It does not seem that we are getting on quite as we should or that this is the way to proceed. In the course of my speech, when I was told that key stakeholders had been informed, my noble friend the Minister said:
“A key stakeholder is someone who has a stake or interest in the regulation or legislation at hand”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. GC 176.]
I am not sure that that took us much further forward.
I came into the House earlier today and picked up a document I had not read before. I am not sure whether it was on the table in the Grand Committee when I came in last Monday. It is the second report of the 2015-16 Session of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In her very brief introductory speech last time, my noble friend made a reference to one of the reports of that important committee. She said that the Government would follow the recommendation that a review clause should be added to the policy. A commitment was given that a review clause would be introduced in due course. However, that was only one of five committee reports outlined in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.11 of the Joint Committee document, covering nearly three pages, which identified,
“doubtful vires, defective drafting and unexpectedly limited use of powers”.
None of those points has been dealt with at all by the Government. We come here this evening and that very important Joint Committee has not even been mentioned by the Government, except on one point. That does not seem an acceptable way to do business.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my housing and property interests as on the register. Like everyone else, I think this is an excellent measure. We need it, it is a good thing and we need to get on with it as fast as possible. It is an awful shame that the DCLG, the front-line department here, has messed up the public relations around this—something that is well worth while and well worth having—quite badly. I have had the various missives from the British Property Federation, the CLA and others, and people are extremely angry and upset. How you can make people angry and upset about a respectable, sensible thing rather escapes me.
The timing is not as catastrophic as it may appear. I have also heard from the Chief Fire Officers Association, which has been engaged in these things for some time, that it has given out 447,000 free smoke alarms and 53,000 carbon monoxide alarms to private landlords. The association has obviously been busy—each of those is worth about £20, so there have been some goodies out there. But, more importantly, on timing, the association says in its note to me that it knows there is concern about the late introduction of these regulations, which are due to commence on 1 October. But under the process described in the draft statutory instrument, if the enforcing authority, the fire officer, becomes aware that a landlord is in breach of their duties—they will not often become aware very rapidly, I suspect—the first step is to issue a remedial notice and allow 28 days for remedial action. However, in reality, when a tenant raises the issue with a landlord, usually the landlord will do something straightaway. If you can fix the problem for £20, not many landlords will wait around.
But if the landlord has done nothing and the 28-day period has followed the visit from a fire officer, if the fire officer finds the landlord is still in breach of the duty they can take action to ensure the alarms are fitted. Ultimately, they can impose a penalty charge, which is quite a long-winded process, I do not think it will be an emergency situation. I feel we can probably live with that one, even though it has clearly been incredibly badly handled.
I was more impressed by the British Property Federation raising the question of fire alarms in mansion blocks—blocks of flats where the regulations state that the landlord must test the alarm on the first day of a new tenancy. When someone moves in, in theory, the landlord—or more likely the agent—would test whether the alarm was working on that day. These alarms in the mansion blocks are communal alarms that ring throughout the building. If you have a block with tenants turning over quite regularly and the darn thing going off every time there is a new tenancy, bureaucracy is getting a little out of hand. Quite a lot of these alarms also ring at the fire station or the police station or both. This can all be overdone. I would like some reassurance that these regulations will not be imposed willy-nilly, across the piece, in exactly the same way for the lonely one-off house or the mansion block.
I chair the Property Ombudsman, which receives complaints from landlords as well as tenants about agents. I have talked to a couple of agents about their current experiences. Your Lordships may be interested to hear how people who are running these places feel about these matters. The agents I spoke to said that in most cases landlords are already fitting fire alarms, so this is not a big deal. They think that there will be cases where an alarm will have to be fitted on every floor in a three-bedroomed house, which the landlord might not have done. They will do it. They will take the screwdriver and put in the new alarm. An agent explained to me that you want to visit your properties every six months, not every year. Some landlords and agents will go on an annual basis, but every six months is better because batteries are always running out. If a battery starts bleeping because it is getting low, tenants tend to take the battery out because it is so irritating, but that disables the system, which is not clever. The agents I spoke to believe that they can cope. This is a good measure. If only the DCLG had got its act together and put it out in a sensible way, we would all have been very happy tonight.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I fully support what these regulations are trying to achieve. These alarms save lives. From my point of view as a landlord, I am confident that I already comply with smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms where properties have gas. However, I am less confident with having carbon monoxide alarms in properties in Norfolk which have no gas, although they have open fireplaces and wood burners. I always thought that alarms were not necessary for fireplaces because when a fire is lit the air and smoke are drawn up the chimney and away. Obviously, following these regulations, I will need to fit carbon monoxide alarms there, too.
I am only too well aware of the dangers of carbon monoxide. A good friend of mine is now bringing up his nephews and nieces following the death of their parents because of carbon monoxide poisoning. They had no alarm. Also, last winter I was woken in the middle of the night in London by our carbon monoxide alarm. I jumped out of bed, turned off the gas and opened all the windows. Happily I am here to tell the tale, but it was quite scary at the time.
I support these measures, but I have three concerns about the practicalities of putting these measures in place. First, how will the Government make landlords aware of these regulations? I understand the Government have already informed local authorities, fire stations, letting agencies and various landlord associations but, disappointingly, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, 60% of landlords do not know of the existence of the regulations and yet they have to comply by 1 October this year.
It is a great pity that local authorities do not have a register of all landlords in their area as this would make this exercise so much easier. Last June, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked an Oral Question on the private rented sector. I suggested that as all new occupants are legally obliged to complete the council tax registration form, there should be a single change to that form requiring that they give the name, address and contact details of their landlord, if appropriate. In a few years a complete list of landlords would be compiled. I raise this point again as I fully expect that when I suggested it in June it fell on stony ground. I hope this time the Minister and her department will give this suggestion serious consideration.
I go back to the question of how the Government intend to inform landlords of these regulations. For my part, nobody, not the local authority, the fire station or anybody else, has contacted me about this. I know about it only as a Member of this House.
Secondly, even if a landlord knows about these regulations, I seriously doubt that logistically it is possible for him to fit them before l October. I can imagine a landlord going to a supplier saying he would like 100 smoke alarms and 200 carbon monoxide alarms only to be told that there are only half a dozen of each in stock and that other suppliers up and down the country are in the same boat. When eventually he gets the right number of alarms, he will then need to find a professional to fit them only to be told to join the queue, which may be weeks or months long.
Thirdly, the landlord may have problems with access to his properties. Although I have keys to all my properties, I certainly would not enter without contacting the tenant first. It could take larger landlords weeks before they have access to all their properties, just to see whether those properties have the requisite number of alarms. The landlord then has to acquire the alarms and arrange for them to be fitted before he is compliant with these regulations, all before 1 October, but that could take weeks if not months.
So I fully support what the Government are trying to achieve with these regulations but I have concerns about informing landlords and the unnecessarily hasty deadline of 1 October. Why not 1 January or 1 April, for example? Regulation with excellent intentions has been spoilt by not thinking through the detail.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, the Minister managed to refer to me at some length, although not too long a length, in the Grand Committee debate. Perhaps smoke got in her eyes, or maybe her ears, when the noble Lord was speaking.
While I welcome the Minister’s affirmation that Airbnb properties will be covered, I was a little puzzled by her reference to fire regulations some time before the legislation—some years before; I think she said 2005. Perhaps she could clarify that, because I do not understand how or why there should be a difference in approach under different forms of legislation for those kinds of properties. It seems sensible to have a single regime for all properties at risk that are rented out wholly or in part, but that does not seem to be the case. Airbnb properties are not within the definition of properties affected by these regulations; they may be covered, but I invite the Government to consider whether a single regime would make more sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, anticipated the points that I was going to make about the report of the joint delegated legislation committee. Both of us, and perhaps other noble Lords, will be interested in the Minister’s reply in that regard. She did not mention the first report of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which noted in paragraph 7:
“The Department has said that it is working with lettings agents, landlord representative bodies”,
and so on,
“to publicise the requirements over the six months from March 2015. It will be important that the Department secures effective publicity for the new requirements in good time for the date”.
In replying to the debate in Grand Committee, the Minister said that How to Rent, the document giving advice to tenants,
“may well be updated in terms of giving tenants more advice … We also want to update How to Rent, as I have just said … in time for 1 October 2015”.—[Official Report, 7/9/15; col. GC177.]
I take it that that has happened, but perhaps she would confirm that it has been updated. Could she also confirm that it has been distributed and, if so, to whom and by what means? It is unlikely that the department actually knows which properties are rented and where these matters are to be delivered, so what form has that publicity taken? What efforts are the Government making to test whether the methods of delivery have been efficacious? After all, we are only a couple of weeks away from the implementation date. There are clear issues there.
Issues have been raised by outside organisations, some of which we have already heard about. I had a letter—I do not know whether other noble Lords have had it—from the vice-president of the Association of Residential Letting Agents. She also serves as a board director on the National Federation of Property Professionals and has worked for a long time in this sector. She made a number of points. One concerned the timeframe for implementing the legislation, which others of your Lordships have mentioned. The second concerned a deadline for recording that detectors are in working order. At the moment the guidance from the department says that that check has to be made on the first day of the tenancy, irrespective of whether the tenant moves in on that date or later. That, she says, is very impractical, and I can understand why. She recommends that recording that the detectors are in working order should be carried out at a time leading up to the start date and preferably prior to that date so that any repairs or improvements can be made in good time.
She raises a third point about the need to check the detector to confirm that it is in working order. I confess to having no expertise at all in these matters— I am clearly guided by her. However, it appears that some of the units that have already been installed—sealed lithium units, I gather—are recommended to be used for 10 years. To comply with the new legislation, the agent or owner can record the time and date of the installation. That is certainly true, but who is to know whether the units have been installed before, what state they are in and whether they should be checked. Therefore, there seem to be practical difficulties.
She also makes the recommendation that further advice be provided by the fire service regarding methods of checking the working order of any smoke detector. That is another aspect of publicity that needs to be given to landlords, and, again, I invite the Minister to indicate whether such advice will be made available.
We are all anxious that the regulations are implemented and that safety for tenants or other occupiers should be enhanced. Given the admittedly restricted reach of these regulations, to which I referred in Grand Committee and which the noble Baroness acknowledged with the communication that there could be further regulation, can she say when such regulations might be prepared? She has undoubtedly been put in a difficult position by the department. In our former capacity as leaders of councils, frankly, she and I would have been outraged by the inadequacy of the service provided in this case by those responsible for drafting the regulations.
I refer again to the need for publicity not just for landlords but for tenants to ensure that they contact their landlords to carry out the check. Given that it is impossible for the department to contact tenants individually, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that such publicity is given through the media—the print media, the broadcast media and social media for that matter—urging tenants to ensure that their landlords are called upon to check, first, that there is actual provision and, secondly, that the provision is effective? I am sure that local authorities—I declare my interest as honorary vice-president of the LGA—would be very willing to promote publicity in that respect. However, we are now only a couple of weeks away from the proposed start date and a degree of urgency is required. Obviously it will take time for all the necessary work to be carried out but surely it is imperative that tenants are aware of the requirement and of the need for them, in turn, to chase up their landlords to provide the appropriate safety measures if they have not begun to take action.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as president of RoSPA. I caught up with these regulations only this afternoon but was moved to make a few comments on them because in times past I had some ministerial responsibility in this area. I do not propose to dwell on the process and timing or on some of the practicalities that have been raised. It seems to me that these have already been extensively covered by noble Lords.
I want to pick up on one or two points. Certainly, the substance of these regulations should be welcomed, as far as they go, although they do not go all that far. I hope that we all have common cause in supporting all measures that can reduce the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning, and the fatalities and illness that run from that. I am also sure that the Minister will have met, on more than one occasion, the campaigning groups that are very much focused on this area. The origin of their focus is almost inevitably that there has been some tragedy in their family or someone they know, which has motivated those groups to campaign. It is therefore important when we debate these issues that we are mindful of their position, too.
I have one or two points of detail. The regulations make reference to smoke alarms or carbon monoxide alarms being “equipped”. Perhaps the noble Baroness will say precisely what is meant by that. The building regulations for smoke alarms, as I understand them, require them to be hardwired. I am not sure that that flows in respect of these regulations. Clearly, if carbon monoxide detectors are not hardwired, they can readily go walkabout.
The capacity of local authorities to enforce is also an issue. The paperwork we have makes reference to discussion as to whether and how this fits with the doctrine of new burdens, and whether local authorities are going to be compensated, and to what extent, in respect of what is required of authorities in all this.
The regulations have a range of exclusions; I am thinking of paragraphs 2 to 7, which make exclusions for one reason or another because the provisions are covered in other ways. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that those exclusions are provided for in other regulations, such as the building regulations.
I wish to raise one point in particular. I refer to the impact assessment at the end of page 5, where it is stated:
“Therefore, any future homes built, or retrofitted with solid fuel installations, would be captured by existing building regulations … with regard to a Carbon monoxide alarm being installed. These regulations will not cover domestic gas appliances as the risk of Carbon monoxide poisoning is very low as a result of the safety features required to be incorporated into the appliance by Gas Appliances (Safety) Regulations … which first took effect on 6th April 1992. Additionally landlords are already required to carry out an annual gas safety check which should identify any unsafe gas appliances”.
I wonder how safe those assertions are. The substance of a lot of the campaigning is that carbon monoxide arising from gas appliances is very much at the heart of the issue that we are dealing with. Although there are mandatory annual checks, the problem is that those premises that are likely to have rogue landlords or landlords who do not care about compliance are more likely not to be subject to annual inspections. That is not a sufficient safeguard.
Finally, a number of points on the range of publicity and awareness-raising have been made, including by my noble friend Lord Beecham, and we have heard from the Chief Fire Officers Association about some of the work that has gone on. Can the Minister tell us about the efforts that the energy companies are making in all this? It was always a bone of contention as to whether they would help to fund campaigns and provide carbon monoxide detectors in particular. Can we have an update on the Gas Safe charities, which campaigned and raised awareness in all this? There used to be two; one arose from the old CORGI organisation, which was replaced by the Gas Safe Register. Way back, there was the intention that these organisations should be merged to create a better process. I am not sure whether that ever happened or what the current position is. It would be helpful to have an update on that in writing, if not this evening.
Lord Beecham
The noble Lord referred to energy companies. I wonder whether he agrees that they should be very much part of the publicity campaign. They are sending bills out after all, online or on paper, and it may well be useful to ask them—to demand of them, in fact—to incorporate some publicity in this respect.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend has said. He has prompted me on one other point. The paperwork we have refers to campaigns that have taken place in various areas. A very effective campaign was undertaken in Liverpool among students. It is often students who are subject to renting the grottiest property around because that is all that they can afford. Working through the students’ union and the university was an effective way of raising awareness.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we come back to a very interesting debate about these regulations and the process used by the Minister’s department. I declare an interest as an adviser to Consumer Safety International and a patron of CO-Gas Safety.
I very much endorse the remarks of my noble friend Lord McKenzie, who speaks with great experience due to his presidency of RoSPA and as a distinguished Minister with responsibility for health and safety in the previous Labour Government.
Let me say at once that we on the opposition Benches support the regulations. Some practical, technical details have been raised tonight, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. However, as a matter of principle, we support the regulations. But they are, of course, confined to the private rented sector. I repeat again the point that I made last week: when it comes to carbon monoxide poisoning, we know that the work of CO-Gas Safety shows that far more deaths occur in owner-occupied homes than in the private rented sector.
We also know that there are issues about British tourists going to other parts of Europe, where the provisions are even worse than in this country. We need to recognise that these regulations deal only with a very small part of the sector.
The second issue is clearly the way in which the Minister’s department publicised the existence of the regulations for those who need to know. It is very hard to argue with noble Lords who feel that the department’s work has not been up to the standard that we should expect. I suspect some of that is due to the swingeing cuts that the Government have made in the number of civil servants. Indeed, the disparaging remarks that some Ministers made about civil servants clearly did not help morale in government departments. I am sure the Minister would agree that, if civil servants and the resources spent in relation to government departments are continually undermined, it will have an impact. I suggest that we see that impact here. It is quite clear that there was no budget for getting the message across to the sector and it instead relied on press releases. Face it: no one reads press releases anymore. It is such an old-fashioned approach to communication —certainly journalists never read them. Relying on press releases and fire officers is simply not good enough.
Clearly, the regulations will go through, and so this will come into law on 1 October. I suggest that the Minister could give noble Lords a great deal of reassurance if she were to say that, on reflection, her department will now engage in a widespread publicity campaign. I think she owes it to your Lordships’ House for her department to make amends. The only way I think it can make amends is to do the job that it should have done in the first place.
I also take the point raised by my noble friend Lord Beecham that it is not just about publicity among landlords but about publicity among tenants. Surely there are ways in which tenants can be informed. His suggestion of using bills and the work of the energy companies is an excellent example. I think that we could leave your Lordships’ House tonight feeling that we have done the proper job of scrutiny—which does not seem to have taken place in the other place to judge by the noble Lord’s report of that this afternoon—if the Minister were to say that she recognised that the department did not do the right job but is now going to do it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this evening. Perhaps I may first thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, because if I do not thank him now I may well forget, but I will refer to his comments in due course. I apologise to him for what happened the other day. I never knowingly omit noble Lords; I try to answer everybody’s questions, but on that occasion I failed.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford talked about the date of 4 September—in fact, many noble Lords referred to it. In his area in the eastern region, I understand a newsletter went out at the end of August. I am not saying that he has seen it, but I know that landlords associations up and down the country were making their members aware. Of course, if you are not a member of the landlords association you may well not have seen it, but it was making landlords aware from the end of August.
My noble friend talked also about the lack of a grace period. There is no statutory requirement to include a grace period. It is government policy that regulatory measures affecting businesses are brought into force on a common commencement date, which is usually either 6 April or 1 October, to help businesses plan for new regulations. The Government believe that it is important to enforce the regulations as soon as possible to help to protect the lives of private sector tenants. A considerable period has been allowed for landlords to prepare for the new duties—as I said, the regulations were laid in draft back in March.
There is also in effect a grace period, because where a landlord is in breach—the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to this—they will have 28 days to comply with a remedial notice. If they do so, the local housing authority may not impose a penalty charge.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, to get this straight, is my noble friend the Minister saying, in effect, that landlords may ignore this regulation until such time as the health and safety officer or the housing officer gets round to feeling their collar because they have been reported by, let us say, their tenant and that, even then, they still have 28 days to comply? The noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Hunt, talked about publicity for tenants because, without it, the possibility of a tenant knowing about this regulation is remote. Therefore, a landlord would be quite unlucky to have a tenant who knew about it, let alone reported non-compliance. It is just not going to happen in sufficient numbers to achieve what the regulation is seeking.
Baroness O’Cathain (Con)
My Lords, the Minister said in respect of the 28 days that a local housing authority “may not” fine. Could that be changed to “will not”? Would a landlord have a period of grace of 28 days after receiving a notification that they were not complying?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I hope that I can clarify that, in effect, the grace period means that the landlord has 28 days to comply after the local authority has been notified that the landlord is not compliant. The landlord has 28 days from the issuing of a remedial notice to comply. I hope that that clarifies things.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford asked about consultation, as did my noble friend Lord Crickhowell the other day. I do not think I answered him very well so I hope that I can give a fuller response now. The Government carried out a major consultation on this and 96% of the respondents agreed that the regulations were needed. Officials from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Chief Fire Officers Association and local fire and rescue services have been in regular contact with industry bodies such as the British Property Federation, the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association and other stakeholder groups.
The Chief Fire Officers Association, as I explained in my opening speech, ran a national and regional advertising campaign. It included newspaper adverts in regional newspapers that stated that the timing would be October. It also ran ads in the trade press highlighting the forthcoming requirements for landlords to install both smoke and carbon monoxide alarms in the private rented sector. It estimates that the campaign reached more than 8 million people.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell talked about the JCS I adverse report on the regulations. The department considered each of the committee’s concerns in great depth and acknowledged the error of not including a review clause. It committed to adding one at the earliest possible opportunity. We are grateful for the committee’s comments but believe that, with the addition of a review clause, the regulations should remain as drafted.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am trying to reflect on what the Minister said. Is she seriously saying that the fire officers reckon that 8 million people somehow or other got notice that these regulations were going to come into force? I have great respect for the fire and rescue services, but that is frankly not believable.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, that is the information we have. I can ask them to clarify how they thought that 8 million people had received this information and write to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords who are taking part in the debate. I would not want information to be incorrect, but it is the information that I have.
Lord Marlesford
If my noble friend believes that the British Property Federation is so happy, why on 11 September did it say that it is necessary to put back the compliance date—not necessarily the date of bringing this into force, but the compliance date—until April 2016? It is a big outfit and it is pointing out that 4.4 million properties are involved.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I take my noble friend’s point. There have been other concerns about the timing, but as I laid out in my opening speech and as I will explain in my responses to noble Lords this evening, this is the right thing to do at this time.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell talked about rogue landlords and my description of rogue landlords. These regulations are intended to target those very few landlords who do not have a concern for tenants’ safety or security.
Lord Crickhowell
I am sorry. I understand that, but I happen to have open in front of me a letter I received from one of the major letting organisations representing a vast range of people, which shows how widely misunderstood the regulations are by the professionals. Some advice may have got through, but clearly some has not. I cannot delay the House setting out all the detail, but there is a long account of all the difficulties that landlords will have, some of which were referred to in practical terms by my noble friend. It is not just the rogue landlords who are going to get this wrong. I did my best when I renewed my own tenancy last week. I took the trouble to inform my landlord and my son at the same time, so that he could let out my former principal home correctly. But this is not understood by a whole range of people. That is the difficulty here: there may be a great blanket declaration that something is being done, but it is the detail that counts.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend and I will see what further publicity can be generated in the next few weeks.
On the timetable for the guidance, the booklet that we published on 4 September aims to aid landlords in understanding and complying with the regulations, and nothing new has been introduced. The requirements of the draft regulations are simply explained in that guidance and, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations, the Government did not intend to publish new guidance on this policy. Noble Lords referred to that last Monday. Instead we plan to use a variety of methods to publicise the instrument and the new duties to both local housing authorities and landlords. However, it was following a large volume of queries that we did decide to publish the explanatory booklet in order to help landlords.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, explained clearly the timeline of landlords being in breach and then issuing remedial notices. He also talked about testing on the first day of new tenancies for blocks of flats. In most cases a smoke alarm requires just a test button, but I appreciate that if new tenancies come in every day, it might be rather tiresome for the other tenants living in the block. If he does not mind, I will write to him in more detail about that.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart talked about the danger of carbon monoxide poisoning. He relayed that story to me the other day, and it is absolutely tragic. He also mentioned the point about fireplaces. They are covered under the regulations for carbon monoxide alarms. If fireplaces are clearly not being used as working fireplaces and are blocked up, they are exempt from the requirement to have a carbon monoxide alarm. He also talked about awareness among landlords, and has discussed with me the idea of a register of landlords from the council tax forms that people receive. He has now pressed me on this three times, so I will go back to the department and discuss his suggestion. He also raised access issues. He is right to say that a request must be made to the tenant to access the property. The testing could be done on the first day of the tenancy when the inventory is being taken. Landlords or their agents tend to be busy on the first day.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned the How to Rent guide and asked whether it would be updated. It most certainly will be, and I referred to it last Monday. He talked about the practical difficulties around testing. Again, it can be done as part of the inventory on the first day of the tenancy, through either the landlord or the letting agents. He also asked whether we could expect further regulations. They will be brought forward in 2017. He then talked about publicity for tenants. I will write to him with any further information I have other than the How to Rent guide because I do not have that answer to hand. The date of 1 October is very significant because a lot of students will be moving into the private rented sector.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether the alarms would have to be hardwired. The answer is no. It is up to the landlord how he or she puts them in. He talked about new burdens on local authorities. We try to make them as light as possible. We spent the previous Parliament trying to undo new burdens. I referred to the nearly £4 million that fire authorities were given both for publicity and the purchase of new fire alarms and carbon monoxide alarms.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister just confirm that there will be no additional resources for local authorities undertaking compliance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The point I was making is that we are trying to make the burden as light as possible. I will respond to the noble Lord on that.
The noble Lord asked about the exclusions and whether they would be covered in other legislation. Care homes, hospitals and hospices will be covered under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Hostels, refuges and student halls will be treated exactly the same. The only sector that is not covered is social housing, but it is so good at its obligations to tenants that it was not an area that needed to be included in the regulations. He also asked what energy companies were doing. We could write to them and ask exactly how they are playing their part.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned that the regulations apply only to small parts of the sector. That is absolutely correct. They apply to parts of the sector that have shown the least duty of care historically to their tenants in terms of the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. He talked about no budget. Of course, a £4 million budget was given to the fire authorities, but I do not know whether he was referring to other budgets such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about a widespread publicity campaign that still needs to happen. I will certainly go back to the department to see what further work can be done, given some of the concerns expressed in the House.
Lord Beecham
Before the Minister sits down, she referred to Airbnb and indicated that those properties were covered not by these regulations but by others. Can she—if not tonight, then in correspondence—provide the details of that? I was left somewhat puzzled by that response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I forgot to respond on that. The fire safety order of 2005 is largely aimed at non-domestic premises whereas these regulations are aimed at residential premises. I will explain this point further in my letter to the noble Lord which we will send shortly. I will clarify the Airbnb point in the letter. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.