House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
1. What plans his Department has to increase capacity in general practice and primary care.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
6. What plans his Department has to increase capacity in general practice and primary care.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
It is a pleasure to be back, Mr Speaker. By 2020, we will increase the primary and community care workforce by at least 10,000, including an estimated 5,000 doctors working in general practice, as well as more practice nurses, district nurses and pharmacists.
Suella Fernandes
Fareham community hospital is an example of Labour’s expensive PFI gone wrong. At a cost of £28 million, it remains underused, half-built and subject to complex governance structures. What will my right hon. Friend do to enable better use of this facility to allow provision for minor injuries, a GP practice and more primary care?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right, regrettably, that the PFI projects under the previous Labour Government created a lot of unsustainable debt. I know her local clinical commissioning group is meeting GP practices and working with community health partnerships to see if they can progress the idea she is campaigning for. I hope to visit her in the near future to discuss it myself.
Mike Wood
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £2.7 million in vanguard funding given to Dudley to provide primary care services out in the community? This will not only improve the level of clinical and social services provided to people in Dudley South, but relieve pressures on Russells Hall hospital.
Mr Hunt
I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. I am not sure I have had a question from him before. I know quite a bit about the Dudley vanguard programme, because I shared a taxi to Manchester station with the entire Dudley team. They told me, at close quarters, about their exciting plans. What really struck me was how they are talking to different bits of the health and social care system in a way that has never happened before. It is really exciting and I think it really will be in the vanguard of what can happen in the NHS.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Many people in my constituency are struggling to see a GP from Monday to Friday. Warrington has fewer GPs than it had in 2010, despite a rise in population. The number of unfilled GP vacancies quadrupled under the previous Government. How does the Secretary of State expect to produce a seven-day service when he cannot properly staff the service from Monday to Friday?
Mr Hunt
I shall tell the hon. Lady how I expect to do it. We are, in fact, making very good progress. By March next year, a third of the country will be able to access routine GP appointments at evenings and weekends. We do need more GPs. I agree with her that it takes too long to get a GP appointment, but we are doing something about it. That is why we have announced plans to recruit an estimated 5,000 more GPs. That will be a 15% increase in the number of GPs, the biggest increase in the history of the NHS.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is widely known that there is a serious lack of doctors who want to go into general practice. At the same time, the Secretary of State is guilty of an abject failure to engage with the British Medical Association in negotiations on junior doctors’ practices. On that basis, how the hell can he promise to increase general practice?
Mr Hunt
Just look at our track record in the previous Parliament: we increased the number of GPs by 1,700—a 5% increase. We are, on the back of a strong economy, putting in funding that will make it possible to increase that number even more. The hon. Gentleman talks about the BMA. I simply say that the people refusing to negotiate are not the Government, but the BMA.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just gently advise the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that he should not stand at this point? He has Question 3. It will be very easily reached, so he should not stand before then. There is no merit in doing that at all.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Unfortunately, every time I open a page of my local newspaper these days I am met with the beaming face of yet another general practitioner in his mid-50s who has decided to throw in his hand after many, many years of serving his community. These doctors are best placed to manage patients in primary care and ensure that they do not have to go to secondary care or A&E. What analysis has my right hon. Friend made of the reasons these experienced professionals are leaving the profession prematurely, and what will his reforms do to stem the tide?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We have done extensive analysis, because of our commitment to transform the role of general practice, of the issues. They include too much bureaucracy and form-filling, which means that doctors do not spend enough time with patients, and a sense that successive Governments have not invested in general practice and primary care. That is exactly what we seek to turn around with the “Five Year Forward View”.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
What discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations regarding the introduction of the new GP contract, particularly the junior doctor contract, given the exodus of junior doctors to Australia?
Mr Hunt
We also have Australian paramedics working in the UK, particularly London, so that traffic goes both ways, but, as the hon. Lady will know, health is a devolved matter, and people follow their own paths. For England, we are determined to eliminate the weekend effect. Every year, there are 11,000 excess deaths as a result of inadequate cover at weekends, and we do not want that to continue.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
2. How much additional investment there will be in children and young people’s mental health services in 2015-16.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
5. How much additional investment there will be in children and young people’s mental health services in 2015-16.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
7. How much additional investment there will be in children and young people’s mental health services in 2015-16.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
We are investing an additional £173 million this year, which includes £30 million specifically for eating disorders. We are taking a targeted and phased approach to the additional investment to develop capacity and capability across health, education and children’s services, from prevention and resilience building to supporting the most vulnerable.
Ruth Cadbury
The Government explicitly promised £250 million for children’s mental health in 2015-16, yet the Department of Health has admitted it will be spending only £143 million by next April. Is this £170 million shortfall not further evidence that while Ministers might talk a good talk on mental health, we should judge them by their actions?
Alistair Burt
No. I take the hon. Lady’s point, but we are committed to spending £1.25 billion over the Parliament. We will not be able to spend the £250 million this year, but it will be included in future years. The reason is that we have to make sure it is effectively and properly spent and it is a phased programme. She will be delighted to know that in her constituency there will be an extra £536,000 for children’s mental health services.
Rushanara Ali
The organisation YoungMinds found that one in five mental health trusts had had to freeze or cut budgets every year in the last Parliament, and at the moment 40,000 young people are being refused mental health treatment. What guarantees can the Minister give that the money promised by the Chancellor recently will actually be made available and that trusts will not continue to cut mental health budgets?
Alistair Burt
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. While we invest money nationally in services, people complain that locally clinical commissioning groups have not been funnelling the money down. Two things should help: first, for the first time the national access and working time targets, which the Government have introduced, will provide a means of monitoring what CCGs are doing; and, secondly, the new scorecard for CCGs will look explicitly to ensure that a proportion of the increase to a CCG goes into mental health services. The hon. Lady will also be pleased to know that in her own CCG area there will be an extra £521,000 for children’s mental health services.
Bill Esterson
Some 23% of the adult prison population were in care as children and many of them have poor mental health. Will the Minister ensure that mental health services are in place for children in care to make the greatest contribution possible to improving their life chances, and not least to ensure we reduce the numbers ending up in prison?
Alistair Burt
Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a point made by successive Governments: care outcomes are terrible and the earlier the intervention the better. We are encouraging the engagement of early prevention therapies, including for those in care, and for the first time the Government have appointed a dedicated mental health Minister, in the Department for Education, further to promote resilience and work more closely with young children, including those in care.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Infection control in the community is a great way to reduce preventable illness. In November, I will launch a handwashing campaign in Parliament that I hope will have cross-party support. Will the Minister inform the House what his Department is doing to promote infection control outside the hospital setting?
Mr Speaker
Order. I listened carefully because I wished to hear the development of the question, but it did not appear to relate to mental health services.
Mr Speaker
Never mind. These things can always be recycled on subsequent occasions. I have been there and I have done it, and the hon. Lady should fear not.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister referred to the additional money for eating disorders in the autumn statement last year, the purpose of which was to introduce a maximum waiting times standard from next April. We all know that early intervention is critical. It is a condition that kills too many people. Will he confirm that he remains committed to introducing a maximum waiting times standard for eating disorders from next April?
Alistair Burt
I believe we are. I will check to be certain, as I know the right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about this, but I believe we are. We have £150 million for eating disorders, and £30 million is being spent this year, with additional beds allocated. I will check that the waiting target times remain because they have made a significant difference. The right hon. Gentleman’s work has been of powerful import in what we do.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children revealed that one in five children in need of mental health treatment are being turned away. Is it not appalling that young people are being denied help, only for them to become more seriously ill later on, and that the number of children turning up at A&E because of mental illness has doubled in recent years? Does the Minister accept that children’s mental health needs more money now—this year, as he promised? I can point to many different organisations across the country that would gladly receive that support now. How is he going to put his broken promise right?
Alistair Burt
May I welcome the hon. Lady to her position, not least her Cabinet position—he said carefully—and welcome the prominence that mental health now has among all parties? Let me say rather gently in response to the tirade that I have just received that under this Government we have for the first time introduced parity of esteem for mental health on waiting times and national access targets. We are spending more money—£1.25 billion over the next five years. We have the highest number of beds for young people in emergency situations; we have the first dedicated education Minister for young people’s health; we have £75 million for perinatal health; and in her own constituency, the hon. Lady will be pleased to welcome from her shadow Cabinet position an extra £1.1 million going to Liverpool for mental health treatment for children and young people. I think that is a significant response.
Mr Speaker
I do not know who writes a lot of this screed, but sometimes a blue pencil needs to be taken to it. The Minister is immensely capable and experienced, but a distillation or an abridged version rather than a “War and Peace” version would be appreciated.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
3. What progress his Department has made in delivering seven-day-a-week NHS services.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Eighteen million patients will benefit from seven-day GP appointments by March next year, and seven-day hospital services will reach a quarter of the country by then.
Chris Philp
In my borough of Croydon, the clinical commissioning group is currently consulting on the possibility of having three seven-day-a-week, 12-hour-a-day combined minor injury and GP centres, with one at Purley hospital in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether any additional funding is available from central Government to facilitate this seven-day-a-week service?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I can. I should have said that seven-day hospital services will be available to a quarter of the country by March 2017. We are putting an extra £10 billion into the NHS in the course of this Parliament, which will help in the roll-out of seven-day services—I hope in Croydon, as well. I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts in that respect.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I met a large group of junior doctors in my constituency on Friday, and we talked a lot about seven-day working. They asked me to put two things straight with the Health Secretary: first, the vast majority of junior doctors are already working seven days a week; and, secondly, on their contract, it was not terms and conditions that they were worried about, as I thought they were, but safety. In respect of those new contracts for junior doctors, what assessment has the Secretary of State’s Government made about patient safety?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to do that, and to correct some of the misleading impressions given by the BMA about what the changes are. The changes are about patient safety. They are about the fact that someone is 15% more likely to die if admitted on a Sunday than on a Wednesday because we do not have as many doctors in our hospitals at the weekends as we have mid-week. I want to give better support to the doctors who work weekends by making sure that they have more of their colleagues and more consultants there, as well as proper safeguards, which I do not believe we have at the moment. I will be getting that message out, and I hope that the hon. Lady will, too, when she next meets her junior doctors.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend to continue on his drive to improve patient safety and to reduce avoidable harm in our NHS because that is crucial for patients and the professions.
Mr Hunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for the interest that he showed in these issues when he was a Minister.
The reality is that about we have about 200 avoidable deaths every week in our hospitals. It is the same in other countries—this is not just an NHS issue—but it is a global scandal in healthcare, and I want England and our NHS to be the first to put it right. I think that that is consistent with NHS values, and consistent with what doctors and nurses all want.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is good of the Secretary of State to join us today. If he had been here yesterday to discuss the small issue of the £2 billion NHS deficit, he would have heard me say that I hoped we could have a mature and constructive relationship.
As has already been said, junior doctors are key to the delivery of a seven-day NHS. The Secretary of State said recently:
“I don’t want to see any junior doctor have their pay cut.”
Can he now guarantee that no junior doctor will be paid less as a result of his proposed new contract? Yes or no?
Mr Hunt
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I hope that, just occasionally, we might agree on some things, although I suspect that today may not be one of those occasions.
Let me be absolutely clear about the commitment that we have made to junior doctors. We will not cut the junior doctor pay bill, but what we do need to change are the excessive overtime rates that are paid at weekends. They give hospitals a disincentive to roster as many doctors as they need at weekends, and that leads to those 11,000 excessive deaths. Let me gently say that that was a change to the doctors’ contracts made in 2003, so for members of the Labour party to say that this is nothing to do with them is not accurate, and they should help us to sort out the problem.
Heidi Alexander
I think it is fair to say that junior doctors will make up their own minds about that response.
Last week I received an e-mail about a seriously ill woman who had needed to be admitted to hospital over the weekend, but had stayed at home for two days because of recent interviews given by the Department of Health that had made her think
“that the NHS was not staffed at weekends.”
Her doctor went on to say:
“This delayed her operation, put her life in danger and ultimately will have cost the NHS more”.
Does the Secretary of State feel any responsibility for that?
Mr Hunt
Let me give the hon. Lady the facts. According to an independent study conducted by The BMJ, there are 11,000 excess deaths because we do not staff our hospitals properly at weekends. I think it is my job, and the Government’s job, to deal with that, and to stand up for patients.
The hon. Lady talked about being constructive. There is something constructive that she can do, which is to join the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing, and urge members of the British Medical Association not to strike but to negotiate, which is the sensible, constructive thing to do. Will the hon. Lady tell them to do that?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The question is about the seven-day NHS, but there is no point in our having a seven-day NHS if it is not an NHS across the country. I have a constituent with advanced prostate cancer who, as his oncologist says, needs docetaxel chemotherapy. In fact, all east midlands oncologists say that it is needed, but it is not provided by the NHS in my constituency, although it is provided in Birmingham. If we are to have a seven-day NHS, we need treatment across the board. Will the Secretary of State step in and do something about this?
Mr Hunt
I will look into the individual case that my hon. Friend has raised, but I think patients recognise that sometimes they need to travel further for the most specialist care, and can receive better care if they do so. However, the way in which what we are doing will help my hon. Friend’s constituents, and other people with cancer, is not just about consultants and junior doctors working at the weekends; it is about seven-day diagnostic tests, which will enable us to get the answers back much more quickly and catch cancers earlier.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
4. What progress his Department has made in introducing a cap on care costs.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
We have introduced primary legislation and consulted on draft regulations to introduce the care cap. Following the decision to delay implementation until April 2020, we will use the additional time to improve the policy in the light of feedback from stakeholders.
Catherine West
Let me first declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
May I ask what assistance the Department is offering local authorities which are currently cash-strapped so that they can implement new minimum wage regulation, which is very welcome, in order to provide first-class social care?
Alistair Burt
It is not possible for me to talk about what may emerge from the spending round and settlement, but I can say to the hon. Lady that local authorities were given extra finance to implement the Care Act 2014. Some £5.3 billion is available to local authorities to work through the new integrated social care and NHS budget. So we are very conscious of the pressures on local authorities, which need the resources to provide the social care we all expect.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The coalition Government agreed a policy of a cap on care costs, and the Conservative manifesto in May said that no one would have to sell their homes to pay for care. Some £100 million has been wasted on this delay, which has betrayed our older people and has simply ducked one of the biggest crises facing this country. Will the Minister and the Department now apologise?
Alistair Burt
There was a consultation on the coalition proposals, which began at the beginning of this year and ran through the election period. The consultation included a very strong representation from the Local Government Association, which said that it did not want to implement the care cap now and wanted extra time. Therefore, the decision has been taken not to cancel, but to delay. It is of course a change from the position we set out. I fully accept that, but we listened to stakeholders and we are now going to use the extra time, at the request of the LGA and others, to find a way through to implement the policy and to use the time for extra financial products.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
8. What assessment his Department has made of progress in implementing the success regime at Derriford hospital in Plymouth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
I am pleased to refer my hon. Friend to the recent appointments of Ruth Carnall to the role of programme chair and Judith Dean to the role of programme director for the success regime in Northern, Eastern and Western Devon. Together, they will lead an intensive diagnostic exercise within the local health economy, which will develop options for change to be implemented in the new year.
Johnny Mercer
Given the news last week that the Northern, Eastern and Western Devon clinical commissioning group that covers my constituency has appointed a special team to ensure the projected £430 million funding shortfall does not become a reality, what can my hon. Friend do to assure my constituents that an already challenged constituency can retain confidence in its health care provision?
Ben Gummer
My hon. Friend rightly points out that there are specific challenges in Northern, Eastern and Western Devon and that is precisely why NHS England has instituted the success regime and why it has moved quickly to appoint a programme director and team. I hope that with the engagement that I know he will lead with his colleagues they will come to a resolution that will ensure that the challenges cease.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
9. What additional financial support he is making available to the NHS to help it deal with winter pressures.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
17. What additional financial support he is making available to the NHS to help it deal with winter pressures.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Some £400 million in resilience money has been invested in the NHS for this winter. Learning from previous years, we have put this money into the NHS baseline for 2015-16 so that the NHS can plan effectively at an earlier stage.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. In my constituency we have an excellent and much-used facility—a walk-in centre in Middleton town centre—which is now threatened with closure. Will he support our campaign to keep it open? Does he agree that its closure would create more A&E attendances and increase winter pressures on our acute services?
Mr Hunt
I welcome the question and understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about the changes. She will understand that we do not direct these changes centrally and they are decided locally. One of the things we have to try to do is deal with the confusion a lot of people have at a local level as to what they should do when they have, for instance, a child with fever at the weekends and whether they require a GP, an urgent care centre or an A&E department. I would ask all CCGs to be very careful to make sure they sort out that confusion so NHS patients know exactly what they should do.
Tulip Siddiq
The Royal Free hospital in my constituency is at the cutting edge of medical research and is currently treating Ebola patient Pauline Cafferkey. I am sure the Secretary of State will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery, yet the hospital faced considerable winter pressures last year. Will the Secretary of State work with the fantastic nurses and doctors at the Royal Free to ensure these winter pressures do not happen again this year?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent question. I know that the whole House is thinking of Pauline Cafferkey and her family and that it is proud that, under Dr Mike Jacobs and his team, she is getting the most outstanding care that it is possible to get anywhere in the world. We all wish her a speedy recovery. With respect to winter pressures, I know that the Royal Free had a difficult winter but I also know that it has a very good management team and made heroic efforts. I know that the whole team of doctors and nurses will do an excellent job, and we will want to support them in any way we can.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
As part of my right hon. Friend’s plans for dealing with winter pressures, will he look at making greater use of the 63,000 practitioners on the Professional Standards Authority’s 17 accredited registers covering 25 occupations? Has he found time yet to read the authority’s report, “Accredited Registers—Ensuring that health and care practitioners are competent and safe”?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kettering general hospital, the local clinical commissioning group and the Government are all agreed that the best way to help the NHS in north Northamptonshire to cope with pressures all year round, including in the winter, would be to develop a £30 million urgent care hub at Kettering general hospital. That project is with Monitor. What can the Secretary of State do to encourage Monitor to speed up its deliberations?
Mr Hunt
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for his persistent campaigning on behalf of Kettering general hospital. It is a very busy hospital under a great deal of pressure, and I know that people work very hard there. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), who has responsibility for hospitals, met campaigners from Kettering recently to discuss this issue, and I will bring the matter up with Monitor as well.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Department of Health’s own figures show a dramatic change, from a £500 million surplus to a £100 million deficit in 2013, following the introduction of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That deficit moved to £800 million last year and we have heard in the past week that it stood at more than £900 million from the first quarter of this year. Does the Secretary of State recognise that this situation has been exacerbated by the outsourcing and fragmentation of the NHS, which involves spending money on shareholder profits and tendering bureaucracy, rather than on patients?
Mr Hunt
I do not. That Act meant that we reduced the number of managers and administrators in the NHS in England by 19,000, saving the NHS £1.5 billion a year. The reason for the deficits that the hon. Lady talks about is that, around the same time, we had the Francis report on Mid Staffs, and hospitals in England were absolutely determined to end the scandal of short-staffing. However, agency staffing is not a sustainable way of doing that, which is why we are taking measures today to change that.
Dr Whitford
The Francis report recognised the problems of nursing levels. As hospitals will not be able to use agency staff or immigrant staff, how does the Secretary of State suggest they tackle the nursing ratios in hospitals?
Mr Hunt
If the hon. Lady looks at what has happened with permanent full-time nursing staff, she will see that the numbers have gone up in our hospitals by 8,000 over the past two years, so there are alternatives. We need to do more to help the NHS in this respect, and I will be announcing something about that shortly.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
10. What plans he has to review renewal arrangements for the issuing of NHS medical exemption certificates.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
Medical exemption certificates excluding patients with long-term conditions have been in place since the 1960s. The requirement to renew the certificate every five years has been in place since at least 2002 and we have no plans to review it.
Paul Maynard
The Minister will be aware that, over the summer, there has been media coverage of patients with ongoing and exempt conditions being penalised for not having an up-to-date exemption certificate. Because the renewal period is five years long, the NHS Business Services Authority’s address database gets out of date very quickly and many people have been penalised for inadvertently not renewing their certificate because the database held an out-of-date address for them. What more can be done to assist the authority and the patients, perhaps by introducing a shorter renewal period, and to ensure that this stops occurring?
George Freeman
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has first-hand experience of this matter. It is true that people who are responsible for ensuring that they hold a certificate when claiming the exemption could be subject to genuine mistakes. That is why we responded to the feedback this summer and put measures in place so that if someone submits a valid medical exemption certificate within 60 days of a penalty charge notice, the penalty charge will be cancelled. It is also worth remembering that all patients on benefits or on the NHS low income scheme are exempt anyway, and that patients who require frequent prescriptions can enrol for a pre-payment certificate, which costs no more than £100 a year.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
There are 3.3 million diabetics in this country, including myself, who are entitled to these certificates. This is not special pleading, but the issue is that when they come to renew they do need help. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) has said, it is difficult for them to fill in some of these forms. Will the Minister ensure that local GP practices are able to help people if they need assistance in filling in these forms?
George Freeman
I will happily look into that specific issue, discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman and see whether there is anything we need to do.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
11. What steps he is taking to improve support for carers.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
I am not quite sure what the situation is in Wales, but in England I do not think that carers’ invaluable contribution to society has ever been better recognised. We are working very hard to see the implementation of the improved rights for carers enshrined in the Care Act 2014. I am also responsible for developing a new national carers strategy to see what more we can do to support existing and new carers in England.
Christina Rees
There are more than 6.5 million unpaid carers in the UK, with nearly 11,000 in my constituency. In total, they save the state more than £119 billion each year, which is more than this Government spend on the NHS . Research by Carers UK has found that nearly 50% of carers are struggling to make ends meet, and that is seriously affecting their health. What plans does the Minister have to work with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury, and across government, to ensure that the improvement of carers’ finances will be a key part of the Government’s care strategy?
Alistair Burt
The work I am doing on developing the new strategy involves other Departments, and it will look at not only the economics, but what is happening internationally and where we can take the whole concept of caring for a different society in the future. The economics is certainly important; we could not do without the contribution that carers make, but it would be impossible to replace it with total Government finance.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee heard from officials at the Department of Health about the implementation of the Care Act, which is a bold piece of legislation. They admitted that they were very concerned about the unidentified carers, who need to be found in order to be supported. What is the Minister planning to do to make sure that they are identified and supported?
Alistair Burt
In a way, the self-definition states its own problem: these are unidentified carers. I hope that the new responsibilities in the Care Act will encourage more people to come forward and that the greater work of carer support organisations, such as the one I preside over in Bedfordshire, Carers in Bedfordshire, will be able to identify more carers. We want more young people to come forward because, as the hon. Lady says, people are caring and they do not realise they are. We need a concerted effort all round to try to reveal them, so that more can be done.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I am surprised that the Minister believes he is supporting carers in any way acceptably well. The recent personal social services survey found that 38% of adult carers now care for more than 100 hours a week but only one in five of those carers is getting support to take a break from caring. Government cuts have caused a funding gap in social care, which, it is estimated, will be £4 billion by 2020, piling additional pressure on those family carers, and the better care fund and integration will not, in themselves, fix that gap. When will Health Ministers admit that they have got this wrong and argue for more funding for social care, so that carers can get the support and respite breaks they should get?
Alistair Burt
Between 2010 and 2015, £400 million extra was found in order to provide respite for those who are caring for others. Any support that goes into local government, or indeed the NHS, is predicated on a decent economy and decent economic principles in order to fund it—I believe from what happened last night that that has been abandoned by the Labour party. We have to have the resources in the first place. That is what we are seeking to ensure and that is what the work is being done for.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
12. What steps his Department is taking to manage and meet demand for A&E services in Worcester.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
Last month, the Department approved a £4 million capital improvement loan for the expansion of the A&E department at Worcestershire Royal hospital and the development of a dedicated discharge lounge. Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and the local health system will also receive practical support via the emergency care improvement programme to help the trust to address the challenges it has faced in meeting the four-hour A&E waiting time standard.
Mr Walker
I thank the Minister for his reply. I warmly welcome his recent decision to approve the £4 million interim investment in A&E capacity and a new discharge suite at the Worcestershire Royal. As he knows, demand remains very high, and the number of patients being admitted to hospital is close to record levels. May I urge him and his colleagues to look very carefully and urgently at plans for further upgrades, which could deliver much-needed capacity over the coming years?
Ben Gummer
I assure my hon. Friend that we will do so, but he will be conscious that capital plans are the responsibility of individual trusts. I urge his trust to take part fully in the Worcestershire acute review and in other reviews of the west midlands health service. There are challenges, and we will fix the problems only if there are locally sourced solutions, which we will then seek to support.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
13. What estimate his Department has made of the change in the number of nurse training places since 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
The number of available nurse training places in England in 2015-16 is consistent with those filled in 2010-11. There are 20,033 nurse training places available in England in 2015-16, compared with 20,092 in 2010-11.
Drew Hendry
Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS in England, has already highlighted the devastating impact that new immigration earnings thresholds will have on nursing numbers—it is estimated that up to 29,755 nurses will be affected, and that the recruitment cost will be more than £178.5 million by 2020. What representations will the Minister be making to the Home Secretary to put a stop to this irresponsible and illogical change in policy that defines ballet dancers but not nurses as a shortage occupation?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that there are continuing and cordial relations between the Department of Health and the Home Office. Trusts have had three years to prepare for this moment. There is a bigger issue at play here, which is that there are five applicants for every nursing place in the United Kingdom; that is the position for people wishing to train as a nurse. Our first responsibility is to ensure that we are getting as many people who want to be nurses in this country into a nurse training place.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which covers the Wakefield constituency, has been forced to recruit nurses from both Spain and India. Following on from the previous question, what representations has the Minister made to the Home Office, because these changes could affect nurses who have come to Britain, bought mortgages here and plan to make their lives here? Will they be affected?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Lady knows that the Immigration Advisory Committee is independent and it makes its recommendations on that basis. There are trusts—I have visited some myself—that had previously relied on agency and migrant labour that have now managed to change the way they are hiring staff so that they can better source sustainable staffing from the domestic staffing pool.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
In December 2009, Lord Lansley, as the then shadow Health Secretary, described the amount spent by the NHS on agency staff as “unforgiveable”. Since he made that statement, agency spending has spiralled out of control, rising by 83% in the past three years. Ministers are in denial about the root causes of that increase. The cuts to nursing training places have created a shortage of nurses and forced hospitals to spend vast amounts on expensive agency staff. Will the Minister now come clean and admit that it was the Government’s mismanagement that caused this financial crisis?
Ben Gummer
The hon. Gentleman should know that the unforgiveable thing was the dereliction of care by a Department of Health under a previous regime. It contributed to short staffing—a significant part of the scandal at Mid Staffs—that we needed to put right in short order. That required an emergency response and agency labour to be employed. We are now putting staffing on a sustainable basis; we were left with short staffing in 2010.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
14. What steps he is taking to ensure consistency in services and treatment throughout the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
The mandate for NHS England sets out our national ambitions for the health service across England. NHS England and the clinical commissioning groups are responsible for working with local providers. To ensure quality and consistency, the Care Quality Commission has developed a set of fundamental standards. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence also provides a range of guidance and quality standards, and the Department of Health has established the MyNHS website to highlight regional variations and use transparency to drive improvement across the system.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the Minister for that answer, but earlier this year figures published by Public Health England showed that more people under the age of 75 die from cancer in Corby than anywhere else in England. What steps are Ministers taking to help to improve those rates? They are stubbornly high, and we need to stop the higher prevalence of cancer in our area.
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are absolutely committed to world-class cancer care, which is why we put £1 billion into the cancer drugs fund. We have seen a huge 71% increase in cancer referrals, with 40,000 more patients treated, and a new cancer strategy has just been set out. It is true that the incidence of cancer in my hon. Friend’s constituency is regrettably high, and Corby CCG has significantly worse cancer outcomes. That has been recognised and the 2015-16 commissioning plan puts in place a series of measures on cancer, including improving earlier diagnosis, providing treatment within 62-day referral targets and implementing the national cancer survivorship programme.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Creswell in my constituency of Bolsover has been trying to get a health service centre, but that small ex-pit village has been unable to get it because NHS Property Services has been arguing with the CCG and others within the national health service. Despite efforts and letters to Ministers, the village is still waiting for the health service that it has been trying to get ever since this Secretary of State got his job under the coalition. If Ministers want some consistency throughout the land, they should give that deprived ex-pit village a new health service: knock some heads together and get it done.
George Freeman
It is a pleasure to take my first question from the hon. Gentleman. I thought I needed my ears cleaning, but I clearly do not. I will happily talk to him about the issue in his constituency, but the truth is that local CCGs are responsible for commissioning local services. I will happily, as a Health Minister, talk to him about what needs to be done.
Mr Speaker
I think the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s view is very clear, and he has expressed it with unmistakable force.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
15. What steps he is taking to increase levels of organ donation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Organ donation rates have increased by about 60% since 2008. The Government give about £60 million a year to NHS Blood and Transplant to support organ donation. NHSBT has a strategy, which it launched in 2013, to take us up to 2020 and increase that figure even further.
Glyn Davies
Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of increasing organ donation is to ensure that the next of kin of every potential donor is offered a meeting with a specialist nurse in organ donation, irrespective of whether the potential donor carries a card?
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight one of the principal difficulties we face, which is people not having a conversation about donation. Even if people are on the organ donor register, their wishes are sometimes overtaken by those of their families at that very difficult moment. He is right to highlight the brilliant work done by SNODs, as well as initiatives such as the one that will happen this Saturday, when the Daily Mail, together with the organ donor register, will produce a publication that will, we hope, stimulate thousands of conversations across the land. Having a conversation about consent is one of the ways we will crack this problem.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
16. What steps his Department has taken to improve transparency in the NHS.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Last year I launched My NHS, where patients can see how safe their local hospital is and many other things. From next May, there will be overall information on the quality of mental health and cancer care.
Chris Skidmore
Does the Secretary of State share my view that driving up standards in the NHS is better achieved through a culture whereby providers can learn from their peers? For example the excellent maternity department at my local Cossham hospital recently received an outstanding rating from the Care Quality Commission. That is better than the old ways of doing things through targets driven by Whitehall.
Mr Hunt
I agree, and I congratulate the doctors and nurses working in the Cossham maternity unit. Southmead hospital in Bristol has some of the best maternity survival rates in Europe, so there is a lot of very good practice. The way to get the word out is through transparency of outcomes, not endless new targets, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
T2. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I would like to make a statement on measures the Government are taking to help NHS organisations tackle the deficits by reducing the cost of agency staff. Building on previously announced controls, from the end of November we will introduce maximum shift rates for all clinical staff employed through agencies, which will gradually decrease over time as the measures take effect and demand for agency staff reduces. In addition, we will work with each trust to limit or reduce the overall agency spend. Exceptional breaches of the limits will require advance agreement. Taken together, these measures are expected to improve patient care and reduce NHS agency staff spend by £1 billion over three years. The chief inspector of hospitals has confirmed that he believes this is the right thing to do.
Paula Sherriff
Like many Members across this House, I have been inundated with letters and emails from junior doctors who feel completely undervalued and undermined by the actions of this Government, so much so that thousands of them are leaving the UK. This weekend over 2,000 medics and students wrote to the Secretary of State, condemning him for his proposed unfair and unsafe changes to the junior doctors contract. What further evidence does he need to see that he has lost the confidence of the future leaders of the NHS, and does he think he can win it back?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I do. Let us be clear: this is about patient safety, about which every single doctor and nurse in the NHS is passionate. The problem is that the doctors whom the hon. Lady has met have been misled by their own union. This is not about cutting the pay bill for junior doctors, as the BMA has suggested. This is about safer care at weekends, reducing unsafe hours and doing the right thing for patients, and that is the right thing for doctors as well.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
T4. It emerged earlier this month that North East Lincolnshire CCG was operating a primary care incentive scheme intended to reduce outpatient referrals. Understandably, this has met with a hostile reception from my constituents, who fear it may affect decisions on their care. Will Ministers look into this scheme and either offer some reassurance or instruct the CCG to reconsider?
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
The north Lincolnshire scheme is designed to try to encourage doctors to make sure that there are no inappropriate referrals to secondary care; it is not designed to prevent appropriate ones. Over the past five years we have seen an increase of 600,000 in urgent referrals for cancer care, for example. We want to see that continue. It will not be helped if there are inappropriate referrals, and that is what the scheme is about.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Last week senior officials at Monitor reported being leaned on by the Department of Health to suppress the publication of financial figures ahead of the Conservative party conference. This week the Health Secretary has been accused of vetoing the release of impartial independent reports on measures that could reduce our consumption of sugar. Does he not understand that leadership on transparency must come from the very top? Will he now commit to practising what he preaches on NHS transparency and release this report immediately?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I will take no lessons on transparency from the Opposition. Professor Sir Brian Jarman said that the Department of Health under Labour was a “denial machine” when it came to the problems of Mid Staffs. We have made the NHS more transparent than ever before, and we will continue to practise transparency.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
T6. What progress has been made towards the implementation of the Keogh review of urgent and emergency care?
Mr Hunt
We are making good progress and we expect to make a substantive announcement on that before the end of the year. That will be about improving the standard and the quality of care in A and E departments, which I know my hon. Friend has a great interest in, and removing the confusion that people feel about what precisely the NHS offer is in their area. It is looking good and I hope to have something to announce to the House before too long.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
T3. A recent whistleblower revealed that the 111 helpline is in meltdown and at least two babies have died after staff failed to recommend treatment that may have saved them. Two weeks ago my own three-week-old premature granddaughter was very ill. Her parents called 111 and were promised that the duty doctor would call. He did not. They waited the whole long night and the next morning took her to A and E, and she was diagnosed with meningitis. What exactly is the Minister doing to fix the crisis in the 111 service?
Mr Hunt
This is a very serious issue and I will happily look into it personally to make sure that a full investigation is taking place into the incident the hon. Lady mentions, which clearly should not have happened. The 111 service has been an improvement on what we had before. It has taken nearly three times as many calls as the service it replaced, and around a quarter of those are referred to a clinician, but it is clearly not perfect, given the hon. Lady’s story, so I will look into the case that she raised.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
T9. Patients in England wait 18 weeks for an operation, but in Wales, where Labour has run the NHS for the past 16 years, they wait 26 weeks. Does that not prove that only the Conservative party can be trusted to run the national health service?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ben Gummer)
My hon. Friend is right. A further cause of distress for the people of Wales is the fact they do not have the funding that the NHS requires in their country, just as England would not had a Labour Government been elected in 2015, because we would not have the funding that this Conservative Government have promised to ensure top care for patients.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
T5. The all- party spinal cord injury group, which I chair, recently reported that very vulnerable patients are being prejudiced by delayed discharges, taking up lots of public money in hospital expenses that should be used to treat more patients. Will the Secretary of State carry out an urgent service review to address this real problem in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Alistair Burt
Delayed discharge has been a problem across the system for many years. An awful lot of work is going on to ensure that more preventive work is done so that people do not go into hospital, and to ensure that if they do go in they leave quickly. I visited Salford Royal only a couple of months ago and saw the process it has for dealing with discharges more effectively. Learning is going on throughout the system, and more money is in the system for winter in order to cover the problem.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
To continue on the same theme—hopefully I am coming in at the right time, Mr Speaker—I chair the all-party group on patient safety, in collaboration with the Patients Association. We are about to look into hospital infections, and in Parliament in November I will launch a hand washing campaign. What is the Department of Health doing to promote infection control outside hospital settings?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her great interest in this issue and for the campaigning she did before entering Parliament, which I know stemmed from personal tragedy. This is an incredibly important issue. We face a crisis in global healthcare as a result of anti-microbial resistance, which means the current generation of antibiotics is no longer as effective as it needs to be. Proper hygiene in hospitals is therefore vital, and we have a lot of plans that I will be happy to share with her.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
T7. What measures is the Secretary of State putting in place to recruit and retain GPs? Given that he has indicated recruiting 5,000, where does he plan to find them?
Alistair Burt
As part of the proposal to see an increase of 5,000 in the number of doctors working in general practice by 2020, work is being done not only to recruit more, but to retain them and to bring back those who have left general practice but want to return. Health Education England is working with the Department on all these plans and proposals. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify that as a key source of those who will come into the service in future.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Delayed publication of evidence is as damaging as non-publication, which is why we rightly expect clinicians, researchers and managers to publish their evidence and data in a timely and transparent manner. It is a matter of great regret to the Health Committee that we started our inquiry today without access to the detailed and impartial review of the evidence that we need to make a contribution to this inquiry. Will the Secretary of State please set out when he will publish it?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of transparency and publishing in a timely manner. I will look again at the planned publication date for the report she wants to see, which will be published so that Parliament can debate it properly. The normal practice is for advice to Ministers to be published at the same time as policy decisions are made, as happened with the Chantler review and the Francis report.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
T8. The Royal College of Nursing reports that it is becoming clear that for the first time since the early 2000s there is a critical shortage of registered nurses in the UK. Both the UK and global nursing labour markets are changing, and our increasing reliance on alternative sources is not sustainable. In 2014, 37,645 students across the UK were turned away from nursing courses. Is it not time the Minister admitted that the situation is not good enough and that the Government need drastically to scale up those places to reduce dependency on overseas nursing staff?
Ben Gummer
The thrust of the right hon. Lady’s question is correct. That is why we have near-record numbers of nurses in training and a record number of nurses in practice, and we will continue to see growth over the next five years.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Last year the NHS paid £300 million to claimants’ lawyers. Indeed, for small and medium claims, the lawyers made two to three times as much as the claimants themselves. Is there more we can do to stop this abusive behaviour?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
There certainly is. We spend £1.3 billion every year on litigation claims—money that could be used to look after patients on the front line. The way to avoid spending that money is to have safer care, and that is why it is so important that we have a seven-day service.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
T10. As the Secretary of State will know, the Scottish Government are once again in the vanguard in introducing crucial legislation—the Smoking Prohibition (Children in Motor Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill, which will eradicate more than 60,000 journeys per week where children are exposed to dangerous second-hand smoke. Will he advise on what plans are in place for the rest of the UK to follow Scotland’s example?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I have to tell the hon. Lady that the law for England and Wales changed on 1 October, so in fact we are in the vanguard, not Scotland.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Given this Government’s continued excellent commitment to investing in our NHS and reducing preventable mortality, does the Minister agree that keeping healthcare provision as local as possible is very important for Moorgreen hospital in my constituency?
Ben Gummer
The core purpose of the Vanguard programme is to ensure that we get local solutions to local healthcare problems. Only by making sure that we release the potential of local healthcare staff and providers, doctors and nurses, do we get the solutions we require rather than things being determined from Whitehall, as was the wont of previous Administrations that we will not follow.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I can think of few things more frightening than being in labour and being turned away from a maternity unit that someone has visited, become familiar with, and got to know the staff. Over a third of units closed their doors to women in labour last year. What is the Minister going to do about this, and why does he think it has been happening?
Mr Jeremy Hunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; we need more midwives. We recruited more midwives in the previous Parliament, and we do need to expand maternity provision as we have a growing birth rate. I am happy to look at the problems in her area. However, we also have a maternity review coming up early next year, led by Baroness Cumberlege, that will help us to address this problem sustainably.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
What health problems are caused by first-cousin marriages, and how much does dealing with those problems cost the NHS each year?
Jane Ellison
I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific answer, but I would be very happy to get back to him because I know there has been some local discussion about this in the city that he represents. I know of the issues to which he refers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As in the health service under any Government, demand on these occasions always tends to outstrip supply. I apologise to colleagues who did not get in, but we must now move on.
Closure of Wakefield Magistrates Court
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The petition is from the residents of Wakefield constituency
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Wakefield constituency,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the proposed closure of Wakefield magistrates court and the impact this will have on access to justice in areas including Wakefield, Pontefract, Castleford, Featherstone, Normanton and Knottingley; further that the closure of the court would force local people to travel to Leeds; and further that this proposal follows the 2013 closure of Pontefract magistrates court, which resulted in some staff and work moving to Wakefield magistrates court.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider the proposal to close Wakefield magistrates court.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001548]
Redcar Coke Ovens
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for a statement on the closure announced yesterday of Redcar coke ovens, leading to the direct loss of 2,200 jobs and many thousands more in the supply chain in the local community.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
Let me begin by saying that the significance of yesterday’s announcement is not lost on me or any member of this Government, because we know and understand the profound implications it will have for Teesside. The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and I will not agree on this matter, but I pay tribute to her for fighting for her constituents, as every good MP should do. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), who I suspect will also fall out with me today, for the work that he has done on behalf of his constituents.
I say that the significance was not lost on me because it was an honour to go up to Redcar the other week to meet a number of people. We knew that SSI was in huge difficulty. To put the situation in context, it never made a profit, notwithstanding the undoubtedly outstanding workforce and a lot of good will, and the coke ovens were losing, on average, £2 million a month.
The official receiver was accordingly brought in that Friday, and in his capacity as liquidator of SSI he announced, following discussions with potential buyers, that he had received no viable offers for the coke ovens or the blast furnace and that he would therefore begin closing those facilities. The terminology is that this is a “hard closure”—it is a tough closure as well. This is not mothballing, so we have to be realistic about the implications.
This is hugely regrettable news for SSI workers, their families and the local economy more broadly. Only this morning I spoke to the chief executive of the local council, Amanda Skelton, who informed me that at least 50% of the people employed at the ovens and blast furnace live in Redcar, so we are under no illusions as to the significance of the situation for the town.
The Government remain absolutely focused on supporting those people who find themselves out of work as a result of SSI’s liquidation. Through a package of up to £80 million, we will continue to invest in them and the future of the Tees valley economy.
Safety, as Members might imagine, is a top priority. We will continue to ensure that the official receiver has all the funding and support necessary to deliver a safe and orderly closure of these assets, working with the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency. I thank the official receiver for what he has done. He was able, with Government assistance, to keep the coke ovens going until yesterday’s announcement, which is no mean achievement.
By way of example of the seriousness of the situation, when I was last in Redcar we discussed the possible sale of coke that might just have raised £800,000 that Friday morning and that might just have bought some sulphuric acid to keep the power plant going. That was the reality of the hand-to-mouth existence of SSI. That is a reflection not of the local management, which struggled under the most difficult of conditions, but, unfortunately, of the Thai owners, notwithstanding the welcome they properly received when they bought the plant and the great hope invested in them by the local community.
I place on record my thanks to everybody—including the Community trade union, which I had the great pleasure to meet, representatives from the local authorities, local Members of Parliament and other stakeholders—who has helped to operate SSI’s facilities safely during this particularly difficult period. They have done so much to try to ensure that there is a future for steel making in Redcar, but unfortunately all that good work has come to nothing.
Anna Turley
This Government have overseen a tragedy for the people of my constituency and the region. This is an act of industrial vandalism for British manufacturing. We are talking about potentially as many as 6,000 jobs in the local area, but this is about more than jobs and livelihoods: this is about people’s identity, their pride, their dignity and their respect in work, and it is about the heritage and the history of our local community, where people have been involved in steel making for generations. That has been torn away.
This is about more than our past: it is about our future. Fifty apprentices were due to start with SSI on the day it paused production. Steel underpins the entirety of the Teesside economy. The Government have turned their back on my constituents and on steel making in Teesside, and they have dealt a hammer blow to the UK industry.
Why did the Government refuse to intervene on environmental grounds to secure the site? Why have they hidden behind state aid rules when other countries in Europe have stepped in to protect national assets? Why are they claiming that money would go to the Thai banks when the official receiver works on behalf of the Crown and has a responsibility to maximise the value of an asset, not to close it down? How can the Government say, in just a few days, that there were no viable options or buyers, when I understand that there were at least 11 interested parties? Why did they pull the plug before they had properly explored the options for developing foundry coke for emerging markets in western Europe? Why have they included—this is absolutely disgraceful—statutory redundancy payments in the £80 million support package? The payments could be as much as £20 million to £30 million of that sum. They are misleading people and cheating them of the support promised to them. Finally, why have they allowed 170 years of great British steel making, which built the world from Sydney harbour bridge to Canary Wharf, just to fade away without so much as a whimper from this Government?
Anna Soubry
As I said, the hon. Lady and I are bound to fall out on these things. Let me just make this absolutely clear: this is not a decision that the Government have taken; this is a decision that the official receiver has taken. The official receiver is independent. It is his decision and, as I said, he has made it after more than a week of trying to forge an agreement with potential buyers, notably of the coke ovens. I do not believe that anybody has come forward to buy the blast furnace.
We know the reality. The reality is that there is an over-production of steel across the world and an under-consumption. We have not even got back to pre-crisis levels; in fact, we are 25% short. The price of slab made in Redcar has almost halved in 12 months. That is why the site has never turned a profit. That is why, unfortunately, it has made losses year on year. As I said, the coke ovens were making a loss of some £2 million a month. We have done everything we can.
In relation to the environment, we disagree. We are working with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. The truth is that those discussions had been happening for some considerable time before the company went into liquidation, because such an outcome was always the fear, faced with the harsh reality of where we are with our steel industry not only in this country but across the whole world.
Nobody is hiding behind the state aid rules. Many stories are told about what other countries do, but when we dig deep into such stories, we find that they are actually the stuff of myth. Italy is a particular example of that. [Interruption.] I think somebody is shouting, “Outrageous!” I am more than happy to share with—
Anna Soubry
Oh, I don’t have a problem with being brave. I can tell the right hon. Lady that if we look at the action that Italy has taken, even in the peculiar and exceptional circumstances of a group of directors facing allegations that they were poisoning the land and causing cancer, the Commission is now investigating the situation because it is concerned that there has been a breach of the state aid rules. Such is the nature of the rules, which are very onerous.
Finally, on the £80 million package we have put in, the hon. Member for Redcar makes the point that about £20 million—I think it is nearer £30 million—of that is by way of redundancy payments. Let me make it clear that that was always my understanding, and I thought that we had made that clear when we were up in Redcar. In any event, let me also make it very clear that I am not closing the door on the £80 million, because one of the things of which we are very aware is the implications for the many thousands of other people through the supply chain. Many of them have not been paid for some considerable time, such was the contractors’ and subcontractors’ loyalty to SSI, so the effects through the supply chain will be considerable. I certainly want to be in a position to be able to help everybody, not just the 2,100 people who have unfortunately been affected by the announcement.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Our steel industry pays the most expensive electricity prices in the EU and, indeed, in the world, and it is impossible to compete at the margin with such costs. Does the Minister agree that whenever we discuss the balance between environmental taxes and lower energy costs, the Labour party always wants to go further, faster and more unilaterally, and that has had an effect in Redcar?
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have to get the balance right. We all want to live in a cleaner, greener world, but there is a cost associated with that. I just want to say one thing. I had to go to Berlin yesterday, and one of the things I did was to take the opportunity to talk about the actual reality of the situation in Germany. It is right that its energy prices for industry are lower, but those for ordinary consumers are considerably higher. Such is the Commission’s concern that it is now looking at and investigating whether such a balance is a breach of state aid rules. There is a lot of strength in what my hon. Friend says, but we again have some mythology. Sorting it out and getting to the facts is one reason why we are having a steel summit on Friday.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
If someone were to build a steelworks today, they would build it at Redcar because of the port, the quality of the steel, its location in relation to the European market, the skills of the people and the fact that the largest blast furnace in Britain is located there. Coke will still be pushed till Wednesday, and possibly even Saturday. I could ask many questions of the Minister, but the main one that I want answered now is why, when the Insolvency Service is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, allowing him to steer and guide it, did it recommend closure of the entire site yesterday, prior to the steel summit on Friday? We thought that we would be talking about Redcar and Britain’s largest blast furnace. If Britain’s largest blast furnace is not part of a steel summit and a steel strategy for Britain, what is the point of the summit?
Anna Soubry
There are many points to discuss at the summit, one of which is the reality of the steel industry across the world. Let me make it absolutely clear that the official receiver is independent and free of interference from Government, and rightly so. That should never change. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman understood that. We have to be absolutely clear on this. The coking ovens were losing £2 million a month. It is a tribute to—[Interruption.] Honestly, I would take another question, but heckling will not help the hon. Gentleman.
Anna Soubry
It is, I know. That was the pot calling the kettle black, but this is a serious matter.
As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) knows, the official receiver ensured that there was enough coal to put into the coking ovens. That went over and above what we all thought would happen on that Friday, when there was not even enough money to buy the sulphur to keep the power station going, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Notwithstanding his efforts, those of the hon. Member for Redcar and the meeting that I had with the group of people based locally who had expressed an interest, the harsh reality is that nobody has come forward with an offer to buy the coke ovens. Are Members honestly surprised when they were losing £2 million a month?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister’s self-knowledge is a blessed thing and I genuinely thank her for it, but there is a balance to be struck. She is trying to respond comprehensively, which is to be respected. Equally, I want to get everybody in if possible. We will try to strike the right balance.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) is right about the irony of the Labour party complaining about steel plants closing when it imposed the Climate Change Act 2008 on the UK, which unilaterally put huge costs on energy that other countries did not face. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have learned the lesson and will not unilaterally impose huge energy costs and carbon emission targets on British businesses? If the Government do not make that commitment, many other manufacturing jobs will follow. We are merely exporting jobs to other countries around the world.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, even if we had the sort of energy prices that I would like, it would not solve the problem for our steel making industry, which is that the price of steel has almost halved because of over-production and under-consumption.
Kevin Brennan
I note that the Minister said that she and her colleagues understand the significance of this situation. That statement would have had more resonance with the House had the Secretary of State come along today.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and all my hon. Friends from Teesside, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents. In contrast, we now see the practical consequences of having a Conservative Business Secretary who is so ideologically opposed to the notion of Governments acting to protect our strategic economic assets in difficult times that he will not even use the words “economic strategy”, preferring the phrase “industrial approach”. I am afraid that “industrial indifference” would be a more accurate description of what we are seeing.
This is not just about the 2,100 jobs that will be directly affected at Redcar, although each one represents a tragedy for those families; this is about a long-term strategic vision for Britain’s economic and industrial future. I am afraid that for all the rhetoric about northern powerhouses and the march of the makers, at the first big test of whether this Government have any long-term strategic economic vision, the march of the makers has come to a stuttering halt.
Why have the Government been so passive about working to save the steel industry in this country when it is so strategically important? What options did they explore for mothballing to save the assets? Why do they believe it acceptable that the £80 million support package also contains statutory entitlements to redundancy pay? I was interested to hear that the Minister might not stop at £80 million, so perhaps she will tell the House a little more about how much she has in mind. Will she confirm how much it will cost the taxpayer to clean up the site safely?
What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact of the closure on the local community and the supply chain? Did she raise the issue of Chinese dumping during her recent visit to China, or does the UK’s relationship with China now simply consist of kowtowing to the Chinese Government in a way that will mean that they have more financial interest in Britain’s strategic assets than our own British Government?
Anna Soubry
It does nobody any good—especially those who have been made redundant—when people engage in scoring cheap political points, and I think it is absolutely pathetic. The Secretary of State and I have worked together tirelessly to consider every single option for how we could assist. That consumed the time of both of us, and we did that work together. One example of that is the fact that, apparently, during all the goings on in the past about saving Redcar, no Minister ever went there. We were the first—it got both of us—and that reflected our dedication and was our attempt to ensure that we did everything we could. That is what we have done, but we must be realistic. The price of slab has almost halved due to over-production and under-consumption. Yes, I did talk about Chinese dumping and many other things related to the steel industry when I went to China, and unfortunately the account that one gets back is not good. This is a worldwide problem, and it will not be solved overnight. This is a tough time—possibly the toughest time ever—for steel industries across the world.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that if Labour Members want more freedom for the UK Government to determine Government subsidy for important businesses such as the steel industry, they should vote to support the “leave” campaign?
Anna Soubry
My view is that we should stay within a reformed Europe, but those are exactly the sorts of conversations we need to have. We must speak to countries such as Germany and get the facts out there. The idea that only the British steel industry is suffering is not true. This problem affects all steel industries, not just in Europe but in Turkey, Brazil, and around the world. This is a real crisis throughout the world.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I make no apology for repeating in my short contribution some of what has already been said. My constituents know only too well the terrible cost of plant closures. That has happened twice in Redcar, and my heartfelt sympathies go to each and every person involved. I know how hard the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and other Members from Teesside have worked.
Industrial vandalism does not even begin to describe what has happened, and is happening, to steel plants in this country. Ravenscraig—I have said the name, but it now means very little. They are still cleaning up in Ravenscraig. They have tried to contain all the terrible heavy metals and industrial material. Most of it has gone, but people are finding it hard to redevelop that site simply because of what was there before. Will the Minister please pledge in Rotherham on Friday to give positive help to the UK steel industry? We must have positive help to survive the recession for all the reasons that have already been mentioned, such as high electricity costs, high rates and so on.
We have had many talks—I know the Minister wants to help; she has been commended for her positivity and her help—but we have come to the end of the line. No more talking; we need action and more than £80 million to try, somehow, to replace all those well-paid jobs. My constituents know how that feels. Many people, including a previous Member for my constituency, went to university on the back of a training course that they received at that time. He was lucky because not everyone was able to do that, but that still did not produce the type of well-paid jobs that there used to be in that area. That is what will happen in Redcar—we all know that.
We talk about state aid, and other countries in Europe seem able to provide that. Conservative Members seem to use Europe as a battering ram. It is one thing for one side, and something else for another, and they change their minds all the time. State aid is possible; it has been done by other countries. Please consider it.
Mr Speaker
Order. We are extremely grateful to the hon. Lady and I thank her for what she said.
Anna Soubry
I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to explain to her the state aid rules and to bust some myths. She must be assured that the problem is one of over-consumption across the world. These are harsh economic realities, and although I wish I had a magic wand, no Government can set the price of steel. The price of slab has almost halved in 12 months. Hardly anybody is making a profit, and no Government can solve that. She can be assured that the Government are doing everything they can to support the steel industry in this country. Where we cannot support it—as we have unfortunately found in Redcar—we support those workers into new jobs.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister referred several times to the global steel market, and we know that the dumping of certain Chinese steel products has played a part in the situation at Redcar and set a worrying precedent for all other manufacturing industries, including high-tech. Will she confirm that the Government will look to use anti-dumping measures in other situations, just as they have supported their use in this instance?
Anna Soubry
It was, I think, a first when a clear ministerial direction was given that we should vote in favour of anti-dumping measures in the European Commission, and we did that. Last week we abstained from another vote, and I am more than happy to explain to my hon. Friend in more detail why we did that—Mr Speaker, quite rightly, wants me to keep my remarks short. There was a good reason for that abstention, because by doing so we were actually voting in favour of supporting the British steel industry.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
More than 20% of the people affected by this issue are from Middlesbrough, as they know only too well. Like me, they heard the Secretary of State say that he does not like industrial strategy. They know exactly what those words mean—[Interruption.] It is no good the Minister whingeing, because that is what the Secretary of State said, and this is how it impacts on people. The Minister hides behind state aid rules, but she or the Secretary of State could intervene if they were minded to. There is regional and environmental aid. Italy, France and Germany have stepped up, but this Government have completely lifted the white flag and surrendered. The people of Teesside will never forgive them for that and for having to spend £1.1 billion to clean the place up. It is an absolute utter disaster, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman was at the meeting—he wanted to come to it and I said he was more than welcome to attend—and he knows that nobody put up a white flag. He is not stupid, and he knows the reality—[Interruption.] I am not patronising; I am reminding the hon. Gentleman, because he is intelligent and he knows, that the price of steel has almost halved. We are not hiding behind state aid rules. I challenge him to tell me what we could do that is within the state aid rules, and I will have a look at that. We have explored everything.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I recognise that the closure will have a real impact on the community. Redcar is a great part of the world and has a really skilled workforce, and the Government have taken pragmatic steps to try to assist in a difficult situation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are benefits to undertaking more proactive reviews of large sites in industries that are going through transformational change—including diversification initiatives, and considering alternative uses for sites—just as the Minister for Life Sciences is initiating in the pharmaceutical sector?
Anna Soubry
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for his question. I very much agree with him. We have to take an honest and realistic approach to all these matters, looking at conditions and at events we actually have no control over. There are, however, many things we can do. To say that we do not have a strategy is just ludicrous, because we absolutely do have one.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
With regard to the £80 million in support funding, apart from the disgraceful issue of statutory redundancies being paid out of it, when will people actually get some real money in their hands? People have not been paid for up to eight weeks now. Apart from retraining, what they need is money to buy food and pay bills before this tragedy turns into an utter disaster for those families.
Anna Soubry
Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is right when she talks about the people in the supply chain who have not been paid because of their absolute determination to try to support SSI. One of the things we absolutely looked at was whether there was anything we could do to help them. At the moment, we cannot find any way to help people along the supply chain who have not been, but who should have been, paid. It was known that the redundancies were part of the package of £80 million, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. [Interruption.] Well, I certainly said it in the media, so perhaps they did not listen to the local television. In any event and most importantly, we are determined to make sure that it is not just the workforce at SSI Redcar who benefit from the package, but that it goes through the supply chain. We know there are many thousands more who suffer because of this liquidation.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Like all Members in this House, I feel exceptionally sorry for the people of Redcar. I know the Corby steelworkers send their very best wishes. Has the Minister received representations from any other sites that perhaps find themselves in a similarly perilous position? Will she promise to continue to engage with the industry and do everything she can to help?
Anna Soubry
It is not a secret that we have a really serious crisis in the British steel industry. We identified that when we had our very good Back-Bench debate a few weeks ago. We are holding the steel summit precisely for the reasons my hon. Friend has given. We are very keen to talk to everybody, to explore all options and to do everything we can. As the Prime Minister said, steel is a vital industry. We are determined to continue to do everything we can to support it.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The SSI closure is a tragedy for Redcar, but yesterday’s announcement has repercussions far beyond the boundaries of that town. The snuffing out of the blast furnace and coke works puts a pillow over and suffocates the entire UK steel industry and a large part of the manufacturing supply chain. It will no doubt contribute to that sector’s death. What is the Minister doing not just to retrain staff but to maintain and preserve this efficient industrial asset, maintaining and preserving that capability and knowledge to ensure that competitiveness throughout our manufacturing and supply chain sector is not lost forever?
Anna Soubry
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I absolutely know and recognise the importance of the manufacturing sector. I have already used the words the Prime Minister used in recognition of the vital part that steel plays in our manufacturing, and indeed in the country’s, whole industrial base. We absolutely want to support it. That is one of the reasons why we are having the summit on Friday. It is absolutely understood and accepted that it would be wrong to lose steel—the manufacturing, rolling, pressing and everything else of steel in this country—but we are where we are. At the moment, we have gross overcapacity. That is the tragedy, as prices continue to fall.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Clearly, what has happened in Redcar is a terrible blow to its local economy. In northern Lincolnshire, our economy is very dependent on the future of the Scunthorpe works. It is clearly important that we maintain steel manufacturing capacity in the country. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will redouble their efforts to ensure that the Scunthorpe works continues?
Anna Soubry
Let me make it clear: I will continue to do everything we can to keep the steel industry going in this country. I am looking forward to meeting my hon. Friend later and I am going to Rotherham on Monday to meet people there. I will continue to meet, go around and visit. That is part of our determination to do everything we can to support this vital industry.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
High carbon taxes and energy costs played a major role in SSI failing. Many other industries across our country are facing the self-same issues. Hundreds of my constituents lost their jobs on Teesside last week. How many more jobs have to be lost before the Government change their policy and start to address these issues?
Anna Soubry
I think we fall out when we say it is “our” policy. We have all been agreed that we want a cleaner, greener world, but it comes at a price. As I said before, electricity prices and the cost of energy were not the reason. They did not help, but this is about the worldwide problem of over-production, under-consumption and a fall in the price of steel by up to a half of what it was 12 months ago.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
This is deeply regrettable and will have profound implications for the whole economy. I welcome the announcement of a steel summit to discuss the broader impacts on industry. Will the Minister say more about the organisations that will be involved?
Anna Soubry
Off the top of my head, those attending will be—as you might imagine, Mr Speaker—steel owners, manufacturers, the steel trade industry itself, trade unions, local Members of Parliament and Ministers from relevant Departments. I cannot remember now, but I think we have a couple of other people coming along to provide an independent assessment of the future of the steel industry. I do not want the summit to be too big; otherwise it will just turn into a grand talking shop. That is the one thing we do not want. I hope we will have all the key people there.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
My words could never convey to the Minister the sense of abandonment that is felt in communities throughout the Tees Valley. She stands there as if she has had no choices to make. Why can we not mothball this site? It would cost £30 million. Last time Redcar was in this position it took three years to find a solution. This Government are giving it only days. Why?
Anna Soubry
Because the official receiver has come to the conclusion—[Interruption.] No, we cannot hide behind the fact that the official receiver is in charge. The official receiver has said he cannot find a buyer. The hon. Lady says it is a mere £30 million. I am sorry, but is that for six months, 12 months or 18 months? How would she justify that to her constituents? It is not Government money, but her constituents’ money. Let me make it very clear: if we do it for Redcar, then do we not do it for every other industry or business in our country that, unfortunately, cannot find a buyer for its products?
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
May I, on behalf of the Scunthorpe steel community, express solidarity and support for the Teesside steel community at this very difficult time? When Jaguar Land Rover was in significant difficulty and very challenged, the then Labour Government stepped in and intervened. Jaguar Land Rover is now a byword for success. When will the Conservative Government step in and intervene so that steel can be the byword for success in the future that it has been in the past?
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman knows we have done everything we can. He also knows that the state aid rules on steel are the toughest. I am more than happy to go through them with the hon. Gentleman to see whether he can find me a way of doing what he says he wants us to do.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
We have to be frank today that the Redcar tragedy casts a dark pall over the steel summit on Friday. Will the Minister say to the stakeholders, and to others in the industry who will be attending and who are struggling with very difficult times, what she will come up with that is new so that it will not be just a talking shop? Does she, crucially, have the backing of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and her own Secretary of State to take the actions that matter?
Anna Soubry
Let me deal with the last point first. I repeat what the Prime Minister said: this is a vital industry that we will continue to support. So yes is the short answer to that question. The hon. Gentleman knows that the state aid rules are the state aid rules. This idea or myth that other countries are doing magic things in breach of the state aid rules without any comeback is just that—an absolute myth.
The hon. Gentleman also forgets—I have to repeat it—that the price of slab has almost halved in the last 12 months. We have over-production and under-consumption across the world, and we are 25% short of where we were before 2009. If we had a magic wand, we perhaps would all want to do these things, but in the harsh reality of the world we are in, we cannot give £1 billion of taxpayers’ money a year, which is what we estimated it would cost, to keep the steel industry where it is today. He cannot justify that to his constituents. That is the reality.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
May I place on the record the sympathy of the people of south Yorkshire for the people of Redcar? Of course, people in south Yorkshire know what it is like to see thousands of jobs go at a stroke.
The UK steel industry faces volatile times. The Minister has said today she understands that manufacturing as a whole will be damaged if the UK steel industry goes under, and it is under serious threat. At the steel summit on Friday—in Rotherham, by the way, not Sheffield—will she please bring forward firm proposals for UK Government support for the steel industry? Otherwise it will just be a talking shop. She needs to take responsibility and bring forward firm proposals that we can all talk seriously about on Friday.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments, but I can assure her that I take full responsibility for the importance of this sector and will do everything I can to make sure we support it.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that here we are, on 13 October, about three months since the general election, and we are now beginning to witness the true face of Toryism in practice? We heard for several weeks the story about looking after the working man. We heard the story about the living wage. Now that they have been tested, the Government have decided to hand over the Redcar steelworks lock, stock and barrel, just as the previous Tory Government did at Consett, Corby and many other places. We are witnessing today the true face of Toryism. It has only taken them three months to appear as they really are. This was the day when Osborne’s northern powerhouse strategy died its death.
Anna Soubry
And the question is? There was no question. Just standing up and making speeches that do not offer a solution—
Anna Soubry
So have I. [Interruption.] You know what, that is so out of order. [Interruption.] Well, I do. I find it offensive and sexist, and the hon. Gentleman should know better. I know he has a bigger majority than me, but in Broxtowe more people voted for me than for him in Bolsover. He needs to understand that there is under-consumption of steel in the world. The price of steel has almost halved. Fine words are not enough. Realism and action are required. We have to live in the real world, not the fantasy world of the ’60s.
Mr Speaker
It has been suggested that improper words were used. I say to the Minister and the House that I can respond only to what I hear, and I did not hear anything. A Minister on the Treasury Bench suggested that something improper was said, but I have to deal with the here and now. The Minister has had her say, and we will now continue with questions.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Back-Bench debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) was held shortly before the trip to China, which took place amid much fanfare. The Minister pledged to go to China and lobby strongly against the massive dumping of Chinese steel in our market. May we have a detailed response about what was secured as a result of those discussions?
Anna Soubry
I had a number of discussions, and I raised with the Chinese the fact that there is now a growing demand for protectionism, especially in the EU, because of these various allegations—not just on steel—of Chinese dumping. I also had discussions about the future of the Chinese economy, including its steel economy, and whether any change in their policy was expected. We were informed that things would not change, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree was unfortunate, and that they would continue to produce steel in this way. That economy, although growing, is not growing as much as it could, so I am afraid that there is not much hope there. However, we continue to make the case.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I echo Members across the Chamber in saying that my heart dropped when I heard what had happened in Redcar and Teesside during the recess. The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has dealt with the matter very well, against all the odds. Having listened to the mealy-mouthed excuses from the Government Front Bench, I would like to remind the Minister that while her Government should have been acting to protect British industry, Mr Chancellor was off wooing the Chinese. What representations did her Government make to Chinese steel over the upcoming HS2 contracts?
Anna Soubry
These things are all in the future. I can assure the hon. Lady that everybody in the Government wants to make sure that, when the day comes and we look to buy the rails, it is British steel that is bought. I also remind her, following our debate on this, that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government made sure that in their projects they bought Scottish steel.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
My father and many others in my family are proud Teessiders, so I know exactly the devastation that this will cause to local jobs, the local economy and the UK steel industry. I also want to pay tribute to the former MP for Redcar, Ian Swales, who did a wonderful job in the last Parliament. The Liberal Democrats fully support the cross-party campaign. Will the Minister listen to the Liberal Democrat leader and immediately commission a cross-departmental ministerial committee to talk about this matter? This must happen straightaway, before these flames die out and the plant is killed forever, which must not happen. Over the next few days, she must do everything she can and look at all the possible options to save this plant.
Anna Soubry
Yes, that committee, which has already been formed, will meet this afternoon. Everybody seems to have forgotten, however, that Redcar unfortunately was mothballed under the last Labour Government and that the furnaces were restarted under the coalition Government. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) must calm himself. I am sure he wishes to hear his colleague, Mr Wes Streeting.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The fate of the Redcar steel industry and the effect on communities on Teesside demonstrate the consequences of a hands-off economic policy and the lack of an industrial strategy. May I press the Minister on the consequences for people on Teesside? She has been asked again and again by colleagues about the statutory redundancy payments they will receive. The hand-to-mouth existence of the plant she describes is nothing next to the hands-to-mouth existence that those people now face. Will she give an assurance that she will consider what more the Government can do to make sure that people receive more than the statutory redundancy package?
Mr Speaker
I thank the Minister and colleagues for taking part in this exchange.
Saudi Penal System
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if he will withdraw from the contract for training needs analysis with the Saudi penal system in the light of recent concerns, particularly the cases of Mohammed al-Nimr, Raif Badawi and Karl Andree?
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Michael Gove)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is important that the resources of the Ministry of Justice are targeted at our programme of domestic public service reform, so, as has previously been announced, we have wound up the work that Just Solutions International, the commercial arm of the National Offender Management Service, has been engaged in. This is in line with our ambition to ensure that the Department’s resources are firmly focused on our domestic priorities. On the commercial work that Just Solutions International had been engaged in with Saudi Arabia, as the House is aware, the final bid was submitted this April, but discussions have been going on since then. We have now reviewed the issue further and decided to withdraw our bid.
Andy Slaughter
The power of the urgent question. What a pity, though, that once again a Secretary of State has to be dragged before the House and that what he said was not volunteered by way of ministerial statement. The Secretary of State is trying to establish a reputation as a prison reformer, and now perhaps as a champion of human rights as well. That would be highly commendable and would be better if our prisons were not in a downward spiral of violence, idleness and despair and if the right hon. Gentleman were not intent on repealing the Human Rights Act.
On 25 September, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister, raising the case of Mohammed al-Nimr. The Secretary of State will be aware that Mr al-Nimr was 17 when he was arrested for peaceful protest and sentenced to death by beheading and then crucifixion. Three weeks later, the Leader of the Opposition is yet to receive a response. That letter also asked for the ending of the contract, so perhaps that response could now be forthcoming. More importantly, Mr al-Nimr remains in solitary confinement, awaiting execution.
The case of Raif Badawi—a blogger sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for criticising the Saudi regime—is similarly shocking, and today we add to the list the case of Mr Karl Andree. Mr Andree is a 74-year-old British citizen from south London who has been sentenced to 350 lashes by the Saudi Government after spending more than a year in custody. I do not know whether the Secretary of State heard the interview on the “Today” programme this morning with Mr Andree’s youngest son, Simon, which was all the more powerful for being rational and understated. He said there was no doubt in the family’s mind that 350 lashes would kill his father, who needs medical care for his cancer, which he has had three times, and his asthma. Simon said:
“I think my father is at the bottom of the list and the bottom of the pecking order”,
when it comes to the Government. He continued:
“I feel that all the business dealings with Saudi Arabia and the UK are probably taking priority over it. All I can say is that the primary responsibility of the British Government is to their citizens. He is a British citizen and I ask the Government to plead for clemency, for him to be released.”
Will the Secretary of State therefore go further—welcome though his comments were—and explain why the Government ever contemplated entering such a contract; why the reasons for continuing the contract were initially given as “commercial considerations”, subsequently corrected to the “wider interests” of Her Majesty’s Government; why the Prime Minister has not responded to the letter from the Leader of the Opposition; and what is being done in each of the three specific cases I have raised?
We know that these are not isolated cases. Indeed, guidance given to British prisoners in Saudi says that the death penalty can be imposed for a wide range of offences,
“including murder, rape, armed robbery, repeated drug use, apostasy, adultery, witchcraft and sorcery and can be carried out by beheading with a sword, stoning or firing squad, followed by crucifixion.”
Amnesty International says that at least 175 people have been executed in the last year. It is simply not good enough that human rights get no regard. Of course this is a balancing act, but in the end, the Secretary of State has to take responsibility and he needs to answer the further questions I have put to him today.
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising these serious issues and for the appropriately sombre and serious way in which he couched his questions. First, this Government take very seriously questions of human rights, and in particular the obligation to protect the human rights of British citizens abroad. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for the middle east, has been talking to Mr Andree’s family, and it is also why the Government have been interceding at the highest level in all three of the cases that the hon. Gentleman raises.
It is important that that sensitive and diplomatic work is carried on in circumstances that ensure that we can influence not just the Saudi Government, but other Governments, in a way that allows them to make progress in a manner consistent with ensuring that our case can be made effectively. That is why I believe that the actions of the Minister for the middle east—and indeed those of the Foreign Secretary and the diplomatic service—in ensuring that human rights considerations can be carried forward have been right and wise.
It is also important to bear in mind that there is security co-operation between Britain and Saudi Arabia, which has, as the Prime Minister and others have pointed out, saved British lives in the past. We would never compromise our commitment to human rights, but we must also recognise that it is in the interests of the most important human right of all—the right to live in safety and security—that we should continue with necessary security co-operation with the Saudi and other Governments.
The hon. Gentleman asks why no letter of reply was written to the Leader of the Opposition. I can only apologise for any delay in writing to him, and I hope that today’s statement goes some way to raising the concerns that he understandably raised in his party conference speech and in correspondence. More broadly, I want to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the whole focus of the Ministry of Justice will be on maintaining the rule of law, upholding human rights and making sure that our citizens are protected effectively with a justice system in which all can take pride and have confidence.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on his decision. I and fellow members of the Justice Committee welcome it warmly. It reinforces Britain’s status on justice and human rights matters. It also proportionately and sensibly continues the necessary work that we need to do on security matters with Saudi Arabia. My right hon. Friend has got the balance right, which some Opposition Members did not do when they were in office.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for making that point. Governments always have to balance the vital importance of upholding human rights with necessary security considerations, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the confidence he places in the Government’s decision in this case.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The power of the urgent question indeed. This is a victory, if we believe press reports, for the Secretary of State himself, but also for the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, which has been vociferous in challenging the decision.
This is not, of course, an easy issue. The contract was being negotiated against a backdrop of a Government who have beheaded more people than Daesh, who are about to lash a British pensioner 350 times, potentially crucify a teenager and have sentenced a blogger to a slow death sentence, so I can genuinely understand why a Government would seek to involve themselves in changing how they manage the justice system. However, questions need to be asked about the whole approach to and relationship with Saudi Arabia, and about why the Government have dropped abolishing the death penalty as a priority in their international work abroad. What assistance did this Government give to the Government of Saudi Arabia so that they could chair a committee on human rights within the United Nations? Why did the British Government sanction flags flying at half-mast when the King of Saudi Arabia died—something that the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson called
“a steaming pile of nonsense”?
I welcome today’s move, but this cannot be the end of our examination of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. One thing the Justice Secretary could do would be to place all papers relating to this deal in the public domain, so that Parliament can examine them retrospectively.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his detailed questions. Some, of course, strayed into diplomatic matters, which are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, but I can confirm that whenever any monarch of any country dies, the flag is flown at half-mast. It is a long-standing convention—one that has been honoured in the past and continues to be honoured.
The hon. Gentleman’s broader point about the administration of justice within Saudi Arabia was well made. We have profound concerns about the respect accorded to human rights within Saudi Arabia, but it is also the case—I must stress this—that the most effective way of ensuring that human rights progress can be made in Saudi Arabia, both for its citizens and for others, is to allow the Foreign Office to continue its diplomatic work, which balances the strong relationships built up over time with an absolute insistence that in all countries and at all times, we oppose the death penalty. We will never resile from that.
Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Deny it though he might, many are left with the impression that this decision has been guided more by my right hon. Friend’s rather caustic personal view of Saudi Arabia than by any legitimate concerns of his Department’s policy on justice. Is it not the case that when we look at a country’s judicial system of which we do not in many respects approve, engagement is far better than disengagement, and that disengagement may be a comfortable moral position, but can lead to no progress whatsoever?
Michael Gove
I take my right hon. Friend’s comments very seriously. He is absolutely right to say that constructive engagement with Governments like Saudi Arabia’s is always the wisest course. However, it is also the case that there is always a balance to be struck in the nature of the engagement that we make. The decision was made across Government that the Just Solutions International branch of the National Offender Management Service should be wound up, and this decision is consequent on that cross-Government decision.
As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, it is vital that we support the Foreign Office, its skilled diplomats and its excellent Ministers in the work that they continue to do to influence not just the Saudi Government, but other Governments who are considering how they can improve their own domestic human rights record and, indeed, promote the rule of law.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is it not almost farcical that the Saudi ambassador to the United Nations is actually chairing a panel that selects officials to decide on human rights violations? I am not aware that the United Kingdom has protested about that; it was probably a party to the appointment.
Is it not also the case that the Saudi Government do not take too seriously the various disapprovals expressed occasionally by Ministers, because they know that Britain will continue to sell arms on a substantial scale to a country where executions occur, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)? Britain’s dealings with that state do not present a very pretty picture.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman has made two points. The first relates to the involvement of Saudi Arabia in the United Nations. Again, I should stress that this is a matter for another Department. However, I think that we should encourage the involvement of countries in international institutions when we can bring pressure and influence to bear on them to meet higher standards when it comes to the rule of law and human rights. That is an ongoing process; it is a dialogue.
In the same spirit, I should also stress that there are, of course, individual British companies that do business in Saudi Arabia, and there are shared security interests as well. Any responsible Government will always want to balance those interests with standing up for and making the case for progress in the realm of human rights, and that has been the consistent policy of this Government.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being an example of a Secretary of State who has made a decision because, quite simply, it was the right thing to do. Can he reassure the House that in future, when that difficult balance is being struck between our legitimate security and foreign policy considerations and the needs of human rights, those human rights needs may be placed slightly higher in the mix than they have been in the past under Governments of all colours?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has made a characteristically wise point, and I absolutely agree with him. It is important that we put the interests of advancing human rights at the heart of everything that the Government do, and that is one of the reasons why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), is the Minister responsible for civil liberties, has revised the way in which the Ministry of Justice engages internationally in order to ensure that human rights enjoy greater prominence.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State has made exactly the right decision today. He has done the right thing, and I think it important for him, in particular, to be given credit for having done it. In order better to inform the debate about the very difficult balancing act that he has had to perform—along with his ministerial colleagues—will he now consider publishing the documents behind this deal? In particular, will he publish the memorandum of understanding that was signed by his Ministry and the Home Office with Saudi authorities in March this year?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous words, but I must stress that this is a cross-Government decision. It was reached after discussion across Government, and it is a shared, collective decision of the whole Government. It is, of course, in that spirit that I entirely understand why the right hon. Gentleman would like further and better particulars. However, I must also respect the nature of diplomatic engagement. It is necessarily the case, and understandable, that when we are seeking to influence countries to act in a way which we believe to be in their interests but which may ultimately involve a change of policy at any given point, we wish to maintain confidence in the nature of that relationship, and that means that such conversations must sometimes remain confidential.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. I think that he speaks for the House when he articulates the reasons for this decision. As he will know, the United Kingdom was recently voted the No. 1 nation in the world for “soft power”, partly owing to an acceptance across the world that we are not willing to be complicit in, or tacitly support, egregious abuses of human rights, including those perpetrated by the Wahhabi-dominated Saudi regime. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we will keep under review all actions to signal our disapproval of its conduct, including the most robust actions in the future?
Michael Gove
Let me absolutely emphasise that the Minister for the middle east and the Foreign Secretary make representations regularly not just to the Saudi Government, but to other Governments whose behaviour gives us cause for concern in respect of human rights matters. However, as my hon. Friend acknowledged in his question, there is always a balance to be struck by the Government between—quite rightly—standing up for human rights, and recognising our broader security and other relationships which help to keep British citizens safe.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
When answering questions put by the Foreign Affairs Committee the other week, the permanent secretary to the Foreign Office said that human rights were fairly low down in the list of priorities, or certainly not as far up as the Secretary of State suggests. The UK’s College of Policing provides training courses for Saudi police. What training is being given, and at what price?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady’s record of commitment in advancing human rights globally is second to none in this place. I should stress that I am not a Foreign Office Minister, but it is clear to me from all my dealings with the Foreign Office that it places advancing the cause of human rights and protecting fundamental freedoms at the heart of British diplomacy. We are guided by our values first. However, when we are co-operating with countries across the world, it is important for us to recognise—even as we argue first and foremost for respect for human rights—that there are shared security concerns. I think that the particular work that is undertaken in relation to policing, although another Government Department is responsible for it, falls fairly and squarely into that category.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber would agree that the Saudi penal system needs reform. Having made his decision, will the Secretary of State outline what he thinks the Government’s future strategy should be in relation to improving that penal system, and, indeed, other similar systems around the world?
Michael Gove
I think it important that we continue to work diplomatically to encourage countries not only to improve their penal systems, but to improve their respect for the rule of law. One of the activities in which the Foreign Office is most energetic is ensuring that the strong relationships that have been nurtured over years by our diplomats and Ministers are used to reinforce and encourage progress and reform in all the countries with which we have relationships.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision, but will he also have discussions with the Foreign Secretary? I listened to Karl Andree’s son on the “Today” programme this morning, and it was clear from what he said that the Foreign Office’s interpretation of “regular visits” was not what he thought his father was receiving. Can we take greater care that our prisoners abroad are looked after properly?
Michael Gove
I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east, who has taken a very close personal interest in this case, that he has been and will continue to be in touch with the family, and I know that every resource that we have to help Mr Andree is being deployed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
We rightly condemn barbaric regimes with which we have no relationship whatsoever, but Saudi Arabia is clearly a key ally in the middle east. As a friend, we have more influence. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House sends the message that the barbaric treatment of British people in Saudi prisons is unacceptable, and that he uses his influence to improve the prison system in Saudi Arabia?
Michael Gove
Our diplomats, operating in our embassy in Saudi Arabia, regularly visit any British citizens who may find themselves caught up in conflict or in the Saudi Arabia criminal justice system, and, as well as providing that consular support, we obviously exercise whatever diplomatic influence we can. However, my hon. Friend is right to stress that the broader security co-operation between Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom is friendly, and that it is in the interests of our citizens for it to be maintained so that we can safeguard their security.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has taken a sensible decision today. He also rightly pointed out that Britain’s role internationally is to encourage other countries to respect the rule of law and that our diplomats spend a lot of time campaigning against the death penalty. However, the rule of law in Saudi Arabia includes amputations and floggings. What will Britain do to try to encourage those countries whose law permits cruel and unusual punishment as part of their justice system to stop it, because that is not justice?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Lady makes a powerful point. It is important to recognise that Saudi Arabia is a deeply conservative country and is going through a period of transition. We want to encourage that transition and modernisation within that country while at the same time respecting the nature of any diplomatic conversation and any diplomatic relationship. That is why it is right that the Foreign Office—its diplomats and Ministers—continue the good work they are doing in encouraging the Saudi regime to adopt a more modern approach.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State has explained very clearly this difficult balancing act. I want to know how it works in practice, because we have to work with countries whose human rights records we not approve of, but how do we actually approach this? Do we talk one to one? How is this actually done?
Michael Gove
We engage with the Saudi Government on every level. Of course it is the case that we have regular daily diplomatic contact. Consular support is given to British citizens in Saudi Arabia, too. It is also the case that there is contact at ministerial level and head of Government level. As my hon. Friend recognised, there is a balance to be struck, and it must be guided first of all by Britain’s national interest, which resides in keeping our citizens safe, but also in standing up for the values our citizens believe in and would like us to promote.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Justice Secretary says the Government were interceding in the cases raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). In the case of Raif Badawi, could the Secretary of State find out why the prosecutors are now asking for a retrial with a possible death sentence?
Michael Gove
That is a very important point, and the Foreign Office are in discussions with the Saudi Government about precisely that case.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Telegraph has reported in the last few minutes that the Foreign Office has been assured that the flogging will not be carried out. Can the Secretary of State clarify matters in that regard?
Michael Gove
It was always the case that our Foreign Office was seeking to ensure that no flogging would be carried out, and it is also important to stress that, understandably, press and media reporting of these events can sometimes be affected by strong emotional feelings, but it is also the case that even as these strong emotional feelings and powerful voices are raised, quietly and behind the scenes our diplomats and Foreign Ministers are working hard to safeguard the interests of British citizens, and we should be glad that the skills of our diplomats are being deployed in order to safeguard our citizens’ interests.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I have made several representations to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office—I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), in the Chamber—over the case of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr. I have yet to receive a reply. This young man is still due to be brutally executed by beheading and crucifixion. Would the Secretary of State perhaps like to comment on this case now within the context of the Saudi prison contract, and also in light of numerous brutal and repeated human rights abuses within Saudi, such as that of Mohammed al-Nimr, not to mention the fact that one person is executed every two days, often by gruesome and medieval methods? There is also the growing number of civilian deaths in Yemen by air strikes conducted by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition. I am wondering—and others will be as well—how the Government can continue to have such a close, intertwined relationship with the Saudis. [Interruption.] What can the Secretary of State tell us today to reassure people that the Government will not continue to support and facilitate human rights abuses? I have heard in the Chamber as well that safety and security—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I have been very fair—some would say indulgent—to the hon. Lady. She must accept that her oration—it was more of an oration than a question—is, for now, over, but we thank her for what she said.
Michael Gove
We both know, Mr Speaker, that the hon. Lady feels very strongly about this issue and has raised it on a number of occasions. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for the middle east would be delighted to talk to her outside the Chamber to update her. There have been specific domestic reasons why, in Saudi Arabia, we have not had all the conversations we might have wanted to, but we continue at every point to ensure we make the case that we believe the death penalty is wrong.
Mr Speaker
If I and the House heard the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) correctly, and if he is correct in his understanding, the barbaric flogging which has occasioned much interest today will not now take place, and I do not think the Secretary of State demurred from that observation.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) is at an advantage in that he has information that I do not have, but that is my understanding and that was what the Government were working towards.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for what he has said and to colleagues for participating in this exchange.
Bills presented
Housing and Planning
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Secretary Greg Clark, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Sajid Javid, Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Mr Marcus Jones and Brandon Lewis, presented a Bill to make provision about housing, estate agents, rent charges, planning and compulsory purchase.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow; and to be printed (Bill 75) with explanatory notes (Bill 75—EN).
Negligence and Damages
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Andy McDonald presented a Bill to make provision about liability for negligence in relation to psychiatric illness; to amend the law relating to damages in respect of personal injuries and death; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December; and to be printed (Bill 76).
No Fault Divorce
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the dissolution of a marriage or civil partnership when each party has separately made a declaration that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down without a requirement by either party to satisfy the Court of any other facts; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to request the leave of the House to bring in a Bill to provide, during the court proceedings to dissolve a marriage, for the option of divorce without blame, often called no fault divorce. Let me begin by saying that I do not wish to make divorce “easier”, because I do not think divorce should be easy. Currently, one can get divorced in just five months, so what is called “quickie divorce” is already available. A couple wishing to take advantage of my proposal would take somewhat, but not inordinately, longer to get divorced—probably one year—but without any requirement to throw mud at each other, as is currently the case, and with more time for reflection on whether divorce was what they really wanted for themselves and their children.
Divorce is a tragedy. It would be better for us all if there were more stable and successful marriages and, as a consequence of that, fewer divorces. Indeed, just as the wedding ceremony states that a marriage is not to be taken in hand “unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly” but rather “reverently, discreetly, advisedly”, so, at least in my opinion, should divorce only be countenanced in the same way, after the most profound reflection.
In English law, the only ground upon which a petition for divorce may be presented to the court by either party to a marriage is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court hearing a petition for divorce shall not hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably unless the petitioner seeking a divorce satisfies the court of one or more of five facts: that the respondent has committed adultery; or engaged in unreasonable behaviour; or desertion; or that the parties to the marriage have been separated for a continuous period of at least two years and the respondent consents to a decree being granted; or that the parties to the marriage have been separated continuously for at least five years.
The law did at one time, and quite recently, provide for a type of divorce known as no fault divorce under part 2 of the Family Law Act 1996, but this was never fully implemented. The provisions at the time were intended to achieve two ends: first, to save saveable marriages; and, secondly, to reduce distress and conflict when a marriage did need to be dissolved. However, that legislation had a difficult passage through Parliament. That was in part because of a lack of enthusiasm on the part of many—and opposition on the part of some—of the Government’s own supporters at the time. According to a House of Commons Library note, 112 Conservative Members voted against the Government in a free Commons vote on the retention of fault-based divorce. In order to save the Bill from defeat, the Government of the day had to accept 137 amendments in the Commons. Many amendments had already been made in the House of Lords.
Some of the amendments reflected concern about the need to uphold the institution of marriage. Others were intended to ensure that the possibility of reconciliation be fully explored by the increased use of counselling and marriage support. Yet others reflected the wish that the interests of children should be given greater protection. The result was that what had started as a simple process became exceedingly complex. Indeed, the Labour party’s spokesman on the Bill in the House of Commons, the right hon. Paul Boateng, who is now in the other place, is said to have described the Bill as a “dog’s breakfast”. Although it passed on to the statute book as the Family Law Act 1996, the implementation of the new scheme was delayed while certain aspects of it were piloted.
As it turned out, the proposals foundered on the concept of information meetings, which were an integral part of the policy. Those meetings provided, in one place, general information about marriage saving as well as the divorce process, but what people wanted was information that was tailored to their individual circumstances. Participants welcomed receiving information, but for most people the meetings came too late to save the marriage and tended to cause parties who were uncertain about their marriage to become more inclined towards divorce. Furthermore, in the majority of cases, only the person petitioning for divorce attended the meeting. In the end, most of the provisions in part 2 of the Family Law Act 1996 were never brought into force and have now been repealed by section 18 of the Children and Families Act 2014, after the then Government concluded that they were “unworkable”.
The law as it stands creates its own problems. According to research carried out by YouGov on behalf of Resolution, which represents almost 5,000 family solicitors, more than 27% of couples citing unreasonable behaviour admitted that their claims were not true but were the easiest way of getting a divorce. Plainly there is a public interest in the justice system not encouraging people to make things up. There is also a contradiction in the current law. Although the whole thrust of current policy is supposedly about taking disputes away from the courts and towards reconciliation, mediation and alternative dispute resolution, people seeking a divorce who wish to avoid apportioning blame often find themselves required by the law to follow a path they do not wish to take. In effect, they are required to throw mud at each other.
There is now a widespread view among lawyers that this issue should be revisited. In March 2012, Sir Nicholas Wall, then president of the family division, said at the annual conference of Resolution:
“My position is very simple. I am a strong believer in marriage, but I see no good arguments against no fault divorce. At the moment, as it seems to me we have a system—so far as divorce itself is concerned—which is in fact administrative, but which masquerades as judicial.”
Lord Justice Munby, who now heads the family division, echoed this point of view, stating that it was time to consider removing the need for a judge to oversee “divorce by consent”. Actually, I beg to differ somewhat from those learned judges. I would prefer that judicial involvement remained. I say this not simply because the marriage contract is a contract—which, of course, it is—and the courts should therefore have some supervisory role, in some circumstances. On that basis, one might argue that the supervision of the courts was not always required. After all, there are many areas of life involving a contract freely entered into by two parties where, if the parties wish to terminate the contract by mutual consent, they can do so without detaining the courts for one moment. However, if one party does not wish to terminate the contract, the protection of the courts needs to be available. The same is true in marriage.
I would go somewhat further. My own view is that the breaking of a marriage is a step of such magnitude—with such potentially serious consequences for the whole of society, not least for taxpayers—that, unlike in other contracts, the courts should have some supervisory role, however minimal, in all circumstances. I agree with Lady Hale, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, when she said:
“We should make it take longer to get a divorce and encourage people to sort out what happens to the home, children, money before, rather than after, they get a divorce.”
The conclusion I draw is that the previous legislation—however well-intentioned—was trying to accomplish too much. I propose one simple amendment to the law: the option of divorce without blame. A petitioner who wished to do so, rather than offering the court one of the five facts currently required—adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, et cetera—could instead satisfy the court that a marriage had broken down irretrievably with a sixth fact, namely that both parties to the marriage had separately signed a declaration that the marriage had broken down irretrievably.
This declaration would by itself satisfy the court without the need to show any other facts. It would apply only when both parties had agreed and, consequently, signed such a declaration. It would not in any way alter—or, still less, abolish—the existing concept of blame. Those who wished to avail themselves of the other provisions of the law which require blame—which may sometimes, although decreasingly so, be a factor in financial settlements and arrangements for children— could do so. My simple change would mean that those who wished to avoid apportioning blame in a divorce could do so. The only other provision in my Bill would be a cooling-off period of one year before a decree of divorce could be made absolute, so that couples would have time to reflect on whether a divorce was really what they wanted.
I would favour easier access to counselling. I would also favour more discretion for the judge to inquire into the intentions of the couple and the extent to which they had sought counselling. I would not object to making some form of counselling mandatory. These are all desirable, but it is not necessary to deal with all of them at once or in one Bill. These matters could be dealt with separately, if at all. Any attempt to reform the law on divorce should be modest in its ambitions, simple to understand and simple to implement. My Bill would not deliver all that some of the more radical reformers wish to see, but it would provide a route for divorcing couples to reduce acrimony and tension during what is already a very traumatic process, if they wished to use it. It would be more likely to gain widespread consent, and I commend it to the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) for the way in which he has presented the case on this difficult matter. In one way, his arguments are very convincing. We heard all of them during the passage of the Family Law Act 1996, in which I took a great deal of interest. The then Government had a majority of one in the Standing Committee, and I was it. The Committee was very lively, loads of amendments were passed and many of these arguments flowed back and forth.
Some of my hon. Friend’s arguments sound compelling, and people might ask why we have not had more debate on this matter. No fault divorce has been occurring around the world for decades—even for half a century in some places—and we now have the means to evaluate its impact. That is what I want to talk about today. Of course I would like to make the moral case for marriage and for a lifelong commitment to children, but the House probably knows my views on those questions and I am not going to convince anyone I have not already convinced by repeating them, so let us look at the evidence.
The social researchers have done their job and the evidence is now available. If this were merely a matter of allowing a few cases of obvious irrevocable breakdown to be dealt with more quickly, cheaply and less destructively, very few people would oppose the idea. It would be a common-sense thing to do. But, while that is what my hon. Friend seeks, very honourably, to achieve, that is not the sole impact of no fault divorce. Unfortunately, all the available evidence points to the introduction of no fault divorce having a large, widespread and demonstrable effect on the societies in which it has been introduced. That is true across the spectrum of developed nations, from Canada and certain American states to Sweden and elsewhere.
The Prime Minister was right to highlight last week the numerous social problems we have yet to tackle, and we now have a much better understanding of how fundamental marriage is to preventing many of those problems. Despite the obvious problems that sometimes occur in a marriage, the emphasis in recent years has been on strengthening marriage as an institution. Bringing in no fault divorce, while seeking to ameliorate one problem, would undermine that new appreciation by making divorce easier, and thus increasing the number of divorces. That is the crucial point.
Let us look at the evidence from Canada. In 1968, the year the divorce legislation was amended to provide for no fault divorce, Canada’s divorce rate was 50 per 100,000 people. Within a year, that had risen to 150 per 100,000 people and by 1970 it had reached 300 per 100,000 people. That is a sixfold increase in just two years, after a century of relatively stable divorce rates. Scholars have noted similar results in US states correlating to when states introduced no fault divorce. The first significant study of no fault divorce was published in 1986, and all the further major published papers since then have concluded that the divorce rate increased at the same time as the introduction of no fault divorce. Do we want to increase the divorce rate? We know that the preponderance of evidence suggests that we will end up having more divorces and a higher divorce rate if no fault divorce is brought in.
What about the other impacts? A study in the US argued that 75% of low-income divorced women with children had not been poor when they were married, but Douglas Allen also points out in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy that
“the real negative impact of the no-fault divorce regime was on children, and increasing the divorce rate meant increasing numbers of disadvantaged children.”
That is what is happening in the United States, but what about Britain? Let us look at the 2009 evidence review produced by the then Department for Children, Schools, and Families. That report found that a child not growing up in a two-parent family household is more likely to grow up in poorer housing; experience behavioural problems; perform less well in school and gain fewer educational qualifications; need more medical treatment; leave school and home when young; become sexually active, pregnant, or a parent at an early age; and report more depressive symptoms and higher levels of smoking, drinking and other drug use during adolescence and adulthood.
Family breakdown is one of the key drivers in poverty for women. The scholar Allen Parkman has discovered that women living in American states with no fault divorce worked on average four and a half hours more per week than their counterparts in fault-based states. It also serves to widen the gap between the rich and the poor even further; a University of Essex study shows that half of all single parents are living in poverty. Even in that bright Nordic wonderland of Sweden the all-powerful and ever-generous welfare state has proved totally ineffective at breaking the link between family breakdown and poverty. There, parental separation is the biggest driver into child poverty by a large margin; among children in single-parent families, the incidence of poverty is more than three times as high, at 24%, than it is for those in families with two parents, where the figure is 8.1%. Furthermore, the number of Swedish households in poverty headed by a single parent is more than four times the number of households in poverty headed by couples.
We all know that hard cases make bad law. My hon. Friend’s motives in moving the motion are unassailable—they are even commendable. Not for a moment can we pretend that the current situation is good, efficient, useful or anything like ideal—I accept that. But when seeking to change that situation, we need to make sure that our actions do not have unintended consequences that fix one thing and make other things much worse. In the face of all this social research and all this evidence—I have had time to go into only some of it—we cannot pretend that no fault divorce will, on balance, have a positive impact on our society. That is what we have to look to, and I have set out what the evidence shows.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not making any argument to do with morality; this is about evidence, scientific research and observable outcomes. Parliament does not exist in a vacuum. A Bill to bring about no fault divorce would have implications throughout the country and I suspect that that is why successive Labour and Conservative Governments have, in the end, balked at it. Other developed countries have introduced it, so we are capable of assessing its likely impact. I accept that there can be no doubt that it will lead to a simpler, less traumatic, less costly way of dissolving marriages that have suffered irretrievable breakdown, but the evidence shows that it comes with further consequences. Do we want to see more disadvantaged children? Do we want to see women poorer? Do we want to see women working longer hours? Do we want to see the wide variety of social problems that the Prime Minister so justly highlighted in Manchester last week deepen further in our society? The answer must surely be no.
This is an important issue and it deserves further debate on Second Reading. I will therefore not attempt to vote down the Bill on First Reading. But before a Bill such as this is passed into law we have to pause, look at the evidence and consider its impact on the most disadvantaged in society. My view is that, after that Second Reading debate, we may well conclude, as our forebears did, that, for all its faults, the current divorce law is worth sticking with.
Question put (Standing Order No.23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Bacon, Mr Keith Simpson, Mr Henry Bellingham, Ms Gisela Stuart, Fiona Mactaggart, Kit Malthouse and Norman Lamb present the Bill.
Mr Richard Bacon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 77).
Immigration Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 323 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
If we are to continue building an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and people who come here legitimately to play by the rules and contribute to our society, we must ensure that it is balanced and sustainable, and that net migration can be managed. When properly managed, immigration enriches this country, as we benefit from the skills, talent and entrepreneurial flair that people bring to our society. But, as I said in my recent speech, when net migration is too high, and the pace of change is too fast, it puts pressure on schools, hospitals, accommodation, transport and social services, and it can drive down wages for people on low incomes. So we must achieve the right balance, rejecting both extremes of the debate, from those who oppose immigration altogether to those who want entirely open borders. That is why, since 2010, we have worked to build an immigration system that works in the national interest, one that is fair to British taxpayers and legitimate migrants, and tough on those who flout the rules or abuse our hospitality as a nation.
Over the past five years we have taken firm action to reform the chaotic and uncontrolled immigration system we inherited, and to ensure that people are coming here for the right reasons. We reformed the immigration rules for migrant workers and students, while continuing to welcome the brightest and the best. We have struck off nearly 900 bogus colleges since 2010, and at the same time we have seen a rise of 17% in the number of sponsored student visa applications for universities and a rise of 33% for Russell Group universities. We transformed the immigration routes for migrant workers and introduced a cap of 20,700 for non-European economic area migrant workers, and we have seen an increase in sponsored visa applications for highly skilled workers. We reformed family visas, to prevent misuse of that route, and we have made sure that people can financially support family members coming to the UK. We have also protected our public services from abuse by making important changes to the way people access benefits and the NHS.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
It will not have escaped the House’s attention that the Home Secretary has struck a markedly different tone in her opening remarks this afternoon from the one she struck at her party conference in Manchester last week. The change in tone is very welcome, but she said at her conference, in contrast to what she said just a moment ago, that the overall economic benefit of migration is “close to zero”. Can she today give the House some evidence to back up that claim?
Mrs May
Nice try, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should read the speech I gave last week, as he would see that I am saying exactly what I said then. In that speech, I also quoted the many reports, from the OECD and others such as the Migration Advisory Committee, that have made that judgment in relation to the economic benefit of migration.
The Immigration Act 2014 put the law firmly on the side of those who respect it, not of those who break it. We made it easier and faster to remove those with no right to be here, streamlined the appeals process in order to curb abuse, and restricted access to bank accounts and rental properties for people here illegally. Thanks to our reforms, more than 11,000 people who were in the UK illegally have now had their UK driving licence revoked.
New powers have already enabled us to deport more than 1,000 foreign criminals, requiring them to make any appeal from outside the UK after they have left. More than 8,000 proposed marriages have been referred to the Home Office, with 120 of them being identified as shams. More than £100 million has been injected into the national health service as a result of the new immigration health surcharge. Those achievements are helping us to build an immigration system that is fairer, stronger and more effective.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
How can the Home Secretary describe those things as achievements when she has so lamentably failed to keep the promise that she made at the election before last, which was to reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands? The figure has in fact gone up to more than 330,000.
Mrs May
I can easily describe those things as achievements. They are achievements that the Labour Government, which ended in 2010, signally failed to secure. That Government did nothing, for example, about people coming to use the health service and then failing to contribute to it. We have changed the rules and more than £100 million has been injected into the national health service.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Home Secretary not recognise that this is a nasty, punitive Bill that will inevitably risk yet more racism and discrimination and undermine the social cohesion that she says she cares about? At the very least, will she guarantee full financial compensation to anyone whose livelihood is undermined by action taken by immigration officers that later turns out to have been falsely and wrongly taken?
Mrs May
I will tell the hon. Lady what impacts on social cohesion. It is when our constituents see people here in this country illegally and able to continue to be in this country illegally. It is fair that we deal with those who abuse our system and who do the wrong thing. It is fair not only to people who have been born and brought up in the United Kingdom, but to those who have legitimately migrated to the UK, have played by the rules and have done the right thing.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
On my right hon. Friend’s particular answer to that question, the problem is that it is very difficult for someone to see that a person is an illegal immigrant. What they see is someone who is different. Does she not accept that, within this law, there is the potential for discrimination to be increased if this is pursued too aggressively?
Mrs May
I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend shows in relation to these issues. He has taken a particular interest in matters relating to immigration, but I will repeat what I have just said to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas): it is only fair to people who come here, who make their contribution to our society and who play by the rules that we take efforts to ensure that those who have no right to be here and who are abusing our systems are dealt with appropriately. That is why it is important that we have taken action on things such as access to bank accounts and driving licences.
Graham Jones
The Home Secretary says that this Bill is the answer, but only 12 months ago we had another Immigration Act that was the answer. How many more Immigration Acts will we have from this Government in the next five years?
Mrs May
I sat in this Chamber for 13 years while a Labour Government were producing Acts time and time again. One thing that one learns in this role is that, in the immigration arena, one has constantly to be looking to see that the system is what it should be. There were some things that we were not able to do in the last Immigration Act that we are now able to do in this new Bill.
Mrs May
I am sure that my hon. Friend will try to catch my eye later on. I will make a little more progress if I may.
I referred to our achievements and said that they were helping us to build an immigration system that is fairer, stronger and more effective, but if we are to ensure that we can protect our public services from abuse and that the system works in the national interest, and if we are to tackle the illegal labour market where vulnerable people are often exploited by unscrupulous employers and subjected to appalling conditions, then further reform is needed. The new Immigration Bill will help us to do that in a number of ways.
Part 1 is about tackling illegal working and preventing the exploitation of workers. The House will appreciate that illegal working is one of the principal pull factors for people coming to the UK to live and work illegally, but those who do so are particularly vulnerable and can find themselves living and working in dangerous and degrading conditions. The illegal labour market can also depress or hold back pay and conditions for the local sector, and undercut reputable businesses. Increasingly, we are seeing labour market exploitation becoming an organised criminal activity, and it is clear that Government regulators responsible for enforcing workers’ rights are in need of reform.
In June 2014, the independent Migration Advisory Committee called for better co-ordination between the various enforcement agencies so that employment rights can be enforced more effectively. Members of this House have pressed that issue on many occasions. In our election manifesto, we committed to introducing tougher labour market regulation to tackle illegal working and exploitation. This Bill will allow us to do that. It establishes a new statutory director of labour market enforcement who will be responsible for providing a central hub of intelligence and for facilitating the flexible allocation of resources across the different regulators. In addition, this morning we published a consultation on the future of labour market enforcement, and I will place a copy of it in the House Library.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I welcome these measures to crack down on exploitative and illegal working—they are wholly admirable—but is not the easiest way to deal with illegal migration to say to someone when they first arrive in our country without the right papers, visa or permissions that they should leave then and not give them entry?
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is right. If somebody is admitted at the border, or is found at the border without the right papers, without their visa and without the right to be here in the United Kingdom, they may be turned around and returned to the country from which they have come. As he knows, if somebody is able to come into the country by other routes and get here illegally, identification is rather harder.
Mr Charles Walker
What we must do in this country is get better at removing people when we discover that they are here illegally. What frustrates my constituents and their Member of Parliament is that the appeals process can go on for year after year. People have worked out that, once they have arrived in this country, it is very difficult for us to remove them.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. We have already been able to take some action in this area. We have reduced the number of appeals routes, from 17 to four, and, in the previous Immigration Act, we took some action with the “deport first, appeal later” arrangements, but that was restricted to a particular category of individuals. We will extend that in this Bill. Once again, we will ensure that it is easier for us to remove people who have no right to be here, without them having this continuous process of appeal after appeal.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
One major achievement of this Government is the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As that was her legislation, the Home Secretary will know that it had specific defences for those who had been trafficked into the UK as a result of slavery. Will those defences be carried through in this Immigration Bill?
Mrs May
The defences that we have written into the Modern Slavery Act will still apply. Indeed, there are other areas where, if we take action in relation to abuse of certain parts of the system, that defence and that issue of trafficking will continue to apply. I spoke last week of using the so-called Spanish protocol. For example, if someone comes to the United Kingdom from another European Union country and tries to claim asylum, the claim would initially be determined as inadmissible, but if there were evidence that someone had been trafficked, we would look again at the issue. Certainly, we will continue to have defences for those who have been trafficked.
I was talking about the establishment of the new director of labour market enforcement and the consultation document we have issued today. Once we have considered the responses to that consultation, we will strengthen the Bill further.
The Bill will also allow us to make illegal working a criminal offence. That will not only make Britain a less attractive place for people to come and work illegally, but will provide a firmer legal foundation for seizing earnings from illegal working as the proceeds of crime. Most employers obey the law, but we believe that a number of employers are deliberately turning a blind eye and not checking whether their employees have the right to work in the UK. That is not acceptable, so we will introduce tougher sanctions for these employers and make it easier to bring criminal prosecutions against them. We also know that a significant proportion of illegal working happens on licensed premises. Measures in the Bill will ensure that those working illegally or employing illegal workers cannot obtain licences to sell alcohol or run late-night takeaway premises. Immigration officers will also have new powers to close businesses where illegal working continues to take place.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The creation of the statutory director of labour market enforcement is very welcome, but to whom will he or she be accountable and through what mechanism will he or she report either to Parliament or to the Department?
Mrs May
There will be joint accountability to Secretaries of State—to me, as Home Secretary, and to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. That is important, because some of the operation on labour market enforcement takes place in the Home Office through the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and some through bodies in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, so there will be a joint reporting mechanism.
Mr MacNeil
I have raised this matter with the right hon. Lady during Home Office questions, and it concerns fishing boats, particularly on the west coast of Scotland. Those on the boats, and the communities and I, welcome migrants who come to work. Migrants have been deported against what we feel are the community’s wishes and the wishes of those on the boats and the migrants. Migrant workers come here to work for a short period and get the money, and they usually go back to the Philippines and west Africa to work. What will she do to ensure that the community’s wishes are respected? Can we have a situation like that in Switzerland, where visas are spread through the cantons? The Scottish Government want to enable people who are wanted in Scotland to come to work in Scotland, but the argument in England is somehow stopping that, damaging our economy and tying up fishing boats as a result.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the operation of visa arrangements for the United Kingdom enables people who fit the requirements—for example, as a tier 2 worker—to come to the UK. However, on illegal working, there are parts of the fishing industry in which we have seen examples of people effectively being trafficked into slavery. It is important that we can undertake the enforcement needed to protect those people and identify them.
Mrs May
I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I did say I was going to make some progress after I had responded to his intervention.
We have already begun to target illegal working through a co-ordinated approach that brings together agencies from across Government to prevent illegal working in high-risk sectors. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration met industry leaders from the construction industry this morning to identify how we can work together to root out that particular problem.
Part 2 of the Bill is about access to services. We will tighten up access to public and other services to protect them from abuse by people who are here illegally. We have already introduced a requirement for landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants. It is only right for people to be able to access private accommodation if they are in the UK legally. That is only fair on people who play by the rules, who scrimp and save to buy their first home, and who come here legally and work hard. I hope that that is a point on which all Members of the House can agree. That is why we intend to roll the requirement out across the UK. However, the immigration status of a current tenant is not enough to allow a landlord to regain possession of his or her property. The Bill will remedy that legislative gap and make it easier for private landlords to evict people who have no right to be in the UK.
We will also create new criminal offences to target rogue landlords who repeatedly fail to carry out checks or take steps to remove people who are here illegally. Let me be clear that this is not about asking landlords to become immigration experts. Those who want to undertake simple steps will have nothing to fear and will not face prosecution or penalties.
We will also build on our measures to prevent people from driving while in the UK illegally. Historically, it has been far too easy for people illegally in the UK to obtain a UK driving licence and that is why, as I mentioned earlier, we created new powers under the 2014 Act to revoke UK driving licences belonging to people who were here illegally.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Many of us live in areas, such as my constituency, that are already highly diverse. People who are foreign-born and black and minority ethnic residents of very long standing are disproportionately likely to be in the private rented sector. Can the Home Secretary assure me that the proposals do not act as a discriminatory measure against those people or prevent landlords from letting properties to those who are quite legitimately entitled to be here but who do not have the necessary proof? The Residential Landlords Association is deeply worried, so why has she not published the assessment of her own investigation?
Mrs May
We will. We made it clear yesterday during Home Office questions that we will ensure that evaluation results are published before the debate in Committee, so that people will be able to see what is happening. I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that people in particular communities are perhaps more likely to rent than to buy or to be able to afford to buy their own properties. It is absolutely right that we should have a vibrant private rented sector, but it is in the interests of those who are here legitimately for places to be available for them that are not being taken up by people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom. That is what our Bill is doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. She will appreciate that a private sector landlord can have no knowledge of when a college has been deregistered by her Department and therefore when a tenant who is a student might be here illegally after the 60-day period has expired. That means that many landlords in student-dominated areas will be reluctant to take on tenants who have names that they regard as possibly foreign. That is the sort of discrimination that concerns many people in my area.
Mrs May
As I said earlier, we are not expecting landlords to be immigration experts. The Home Office has set up arrangements to provide the helpline and advice so that it is simple for landlords to contact the Home Office and get the information that will help them make a judgment.
I mentioned the measures on driving licences earlier, and the Bill takes them a step further. We will create new powers to ensure that revoked licences are taken out of circulation and to strengthen the consequences for people using revoked licences. We will also make it a criminal offence to drive while unlawfully in the UK and we will provide a power to detain and forfeit vehicles used in the offence.
We will further restrict access to banking services. Under the 2014 Act, we took necessary steps to prevent people in the UK illegally from setting up current accounts with banks and building societies. The Bill will expand on these measures by creating an obligation for banks and building societies to carry out periodic checks on the immigration status of current account holders. When an account holder is identified as in the UK illegally, following a court order the account can be frozen or closed by the bank or building society.
Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill are about removing from the UK people with no right to be here. Immigration officers already do an excellent job of enforcing our laws and where appropriate removing people who are in the UK illegally, but we must do more. The 2014 Act shows that “deport first, appeal later” works when foreign criminals make human rights claims. Our manifesto committed us to extending that to all human rights claims. The Bill will now deliver on that commitment, allowing us to remove people with no right to be in the UK before they can appeal, provided that does not breach their human rights or cause serious irreversible harm. The Bill will also ensure that when foreign criminals are released on bail, we can satellite tag them so that we know their whereabouts, and thus better protect the law-abiding majority.
When people have no right to be in the UK, we expect them to leave, but some people are being sent the wrong message. The Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to providing support for destitute asylum seekers in line with our international obligations. However, those with no right to be here are expected to return home and the Bill will restrict the support we give to people who are here illegally.
Part 6 is about protecting our borders. It is imperative that we have control over our borders and know who is coming into the UK. Through the Bill, we will give our Border Force officers additional powers to intercept vessels at sea.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
I applaud the Home Secretary’s responsible measures in the Bill to control migration and I am sure that they will be widely supported throughout the country. Given that almost half of those settling in the UK last year were from the European Union, how can she achieve control of our borders without provisions in the Bill to control EU migration, notwithstanding our EU treaty obligations?
Mrs May
If I had been asked to put a bet on the subject that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise, I would have placed it on EU migration. As he knows full well, the Government have already taken some steps to reduce the pull factors for migration from inside the European Union through changes that we have made to the benefit system, and we have already set out further changes to the benefit system that we are looking to make in that regard.
Through this Bill, we will give our Border Force officers additional powers to intercept vessels at sea, as well as impose greater penalties on airline or port operators who fail to present passengers to immigration control. We must act now to prevent the unprecedented levels of people smuggling that we have seen recently and stop people unlawfully entering the UK—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress.
Not only is border security crucial for immigration purposes, but it serves a vital public protection purpose protecting both the British public and people making treacherous journeys to reach UK borders.
Part 7 is about the language skills of public sector workers. At present there are many customer-facing roles that do not require the jobholder to speak fluent English. Where communicating with the British public is a vital part of the job, fluent English must be a prerequisite.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mrs May
I am going to make some progress.
Through this Bill we will legislate to ensure that that becomes a reality. Today we have published a consultation on the code of practice that public bodies will have to comply with, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
Part 8 establishes a new immigration skills charge for businesses bringing workers into the country. Currently, many businesses are hiring workers from overseas, rather than taking the long-term decision to train our workforce here at home. We need to discourage a default position of looking overseas to fill the skills gap, and the Bill will remedy that by introducing a charge for employers recruiting from outside the European economic area, which will encourage businesses to source skilled labour from the domestic workforce. The funds raised from the charge will contribute to training domestic workers and, in particular, to funding apprenticeships.
Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight. Despite the positive progress that has been made over the past five years, the system we inherited was riddled with problems. We must act now to stop rogue landlords and people smugglers exploiting vulnerable people, to protect our public services from abuse and to ensure that people with no right to be in this country are not allowed to extend their stay. This Bill will build on the progress made through the 2014 Act, ensuring greater fairness for British citizens and legitimate migrants, and making sure that the law comes down firmly on the side of those who abide by our laws and play by the rules. I commend the Bill to the House.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House, whilst affirming its belief that there should be firm and fair controls on illegal immigration including new immigration enforcement powers and immigration status checks on current account holders, and particularly welcoming proposals for a Director of Labour Market Enforcement and to strengthen sanctions to be applied to employers of illegal workers, declines to give a Second Reading to the Immigration Bill because the measures overall in the Bill will not decrease illegal immigration, will reduce social cohesion and will punish the children of illegal immigrants for their parents’ illegal immigration, because the Government has failed to publish the report on the pilot Right to Rent scheme in the West Midlands which could cause widespread indirect discrimination and because the Bill enables the Home Secretary to remove from the UK migrants who are appealing against a refused asylum claim before the appeal has been determined, notwithstanding the slow appeal process and the high error rate in Home Office decisions.
Let me start by setting this debate in an essential and important piece of context and with a point that the Home Secretary skated over at the start of her speech: the most recent evidence is clear—immigration provides a net benefit to our economy. It is not, as was claimed last week, “close to zero” but, according to authoritative and independent research, can be quantified at around £25 billion. That migrants contribute more to the public purse than they take out is a simple fact that cannot be repeated often enough in debates such as this. Similarly, in the NHS, we are far more likely to be treated by a migrant than to stand behind one in a queue. The culture and identity of our country—for centuries an open, outward-looking, seafaring nation—has itself been shaped by centuries of inward immigration, and it is all the richer for it.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
When I was on the Home Affairs Committee a few years, I put that very point to experts and I was told that nobody had ever worked out the costs of migration—the costs of providing health care, education and all the other public services that people take for granted—and done a proper cost-benefit analysis. Therefore I should like to know where the report that the right hon. Gentleman refers to comes from.
Andy Burnham
I can refer the hon. Gentleman to it. It is research carried out over a number of years by Imperial College, and I will be happy to send it to him. I suggest that he should perhaps spend more time looking at the evidence about immigration, rather than resorting to rhetoric, as I know he is wont to do.
All of that having been said at the beginning, the nature and scale of immigration to the UK has changed in the past decade, particularly since the expansion of the European Union into eastern Europe. Anyone who spent any length of time on doorsteps in the first half of this year cannot dispute the fact that immigration remains one of the highest concerns of the public, and the truth is that public and political debate has failed to keep pace with public concern, resulting in a feeling that the political class is out of touch.
Andy Burnham
That would be a good point at which to bring in the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Jackson
May I take the shadow Home Secretary back to academic evidence about the impact of immigration? Given that the labour force survey by the ONS in July found that 75% of eastern European migrants were in poorly paid work and that they were more likely to access benefits, can he point to any specific empirical data which support the concept that east European migrants do not have an impact on low wages, depressing them or pushing them down?
Andy Burnham
I shall come on to that. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] It is a fair point and I shall come on to it. May I again refer the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to the research? The UCL Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration talks about the positive economic benefit of migration overall. He needs to concern himself with the evidence before he intervenes in the House.
As I said a moment ago, the House has not kept pace with public concern, and as I said in my speech to the Labour conference, I want to change that. People listening to debates in the Chamber or in the media will often hear politicians and business leaders make the point that I made at the beginning—that immigration provides an overall net benefit. Although this is true, and to take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, what such broad statements fail adequately to acknowledge is that the effect of immigration is not uniform across the country, but that it has a differential impact in different areas.
Some of the most rapid changes have been felt in the poorest areas and former industrial areas away from the big urban centres. In my constituency, immigration has had an impact on job security, wages, access to housing and public services, but Parliament has been far too slow to acknowledge and act on those concerns. The danger is that that creates a vacuum and allows myths to flourish.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman says that Parliament has been slow to accept that immigration can have an impact, particularly on people at the lower end of the income scale, driving wages down, and it can have an impact on public services. For the past five years, I and the parties in government have been saying precisely this, and the Labour party has been objecting and opposing that.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid I have to point out to the Home Secretary that she was not entirely factual at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. She said that the previous Government did nothing to restrict access to the NHS by illegal migrants. As Health Secretary I brought through measures to restrict access to the national health service. What I am setting out in my remarks today is a balanced approach, which she failed to do in hers. I recognised at the beginning the overall benefits of immigration to this country, but I am acknowledging that there are specific and legitimate concerns that need to be dealt with, because a failure to do that creates a vacuum and allows myths to flourish.
Given that, the right response is certainly not to respond in kind with rhetoric, but instead with practical and proportionate measures to restore public confidence that our system and our rules are both firm and fair.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend expand on how many prosecutions there have been in relation to minimum wage regulations and so on in areas of migration where there is clearly an issue in relation to the depressing of wages? How proactive have the Government been when employers have not adopted best practice?
Andy Burnham
There have been barely any prosecutions because the Government have cut the resources devoted to enforcement. I welcome the Home Secretary’s proposal to create a director of labour market enforcement, but will she ensure that that director, whoever he or she is, gets to grips with the problem that my hon. Friend has just raised?
Ian Austin
The shadow Home Secretary is completely right to say that the costs and benefits of immigration are not shared across the country. Communities such as ours do not attract many millionaire American bankers, French City traders or German hedge fund managers; we have a completely different sort of immigration that puts pressure on public services. Does he agree that the benefits must be shared equally across the country to enable such communities to provide the housing, employ the teachers and all the rest of it so that we can cope with those pressures?
Andy Burnham
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The challenge is to capture the benefits and then have rules that make immigration work for everybody. Let me give him two practical suggestions that I have put forward. First, I believe that we need changes to the EU free movement rules, as part of the renegotiation talks, to stop the undercutting of wages and protect the going rate for skilled workers. Secondly, I believe that unspent EU structural funds, which this Government are not drawing down, should be made available through a rapid migration fund to areas, such as his and mine, that face the biggest pressures on public services, for example to employ extra primary school teachers and GPs. At the moment those areas get no help in dealing with those pressures, so no wonder they feel neglected.
Mr MacNeil
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman saw yesterday’s edition of the Financial Times, which mentioned refugees—we know how some people react to refugees. It stated:
“By streaming into Germany, but not into other eurozone countries, the refugees”
will contribute to
“an improvement in Germany’s relative competitive position”
over the next 10 to 20 years. Refugees and migrants benefit the economy, the country and all of us.
Andy Burnham
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Overall, refugees tend to be younger and not to have dependants. Consequently, the figures I gave at the beginning, which show that they net contribute, rather than take out of the public purse, must be borne in mind when we engage in a debate of this kind.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy Burnham
I will make some progress before giving way again.
As our reasoned amendment makes clear, we are prepared to support practical, proportionate and evidence-based measures that will achieve the stated aims of tackling illegal immigration and illegal working.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way to me a second time. He refers again to the fact that he quoted the net benefit of migration in his speech. In 2014 the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration, when looking at the fiscal effects of immigration to the UK, estimated that migrants contributed around £25 billion to the economy between 2001 and 2011. However, looking at all the migrants who had arrived since 1995, the estimates produced by that organisation suggested a net fiscal cost of around £114 billion. There is some evidence for the right hon. Gentleman.
Andy Burnham
I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has not learnt the lessons of her experience in Manchester last week, when she made a number of assertions without having the evidence to support them. She has got the evidence that overall there is a net contribution—she just quoted it. She, more than anyone else in this House, should stick to the evidence at all times and not resort to rhetoric.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy Burnham
I will give way in a moment, after I have made some progress.
I have said that we will support measures to create a director of labour market enforcement, building on legislation passed by the previous Labour Government, particularly the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. We also support many of the measures set out in part 3 of the Bill to improve enforcement and equip immigration officers with all the necessary powers to do their difficult job in a more complex and changing world. I am pleased to see the Government acting to address the weak points in the UK border, particularly at smaller regional airports and seaports. We support the measures set out in part 6 to tackle problems before people arrive in the UK by extending the reach of the Border Force into UK territorial waters.
John Redwood
The right hon. Gentleman made a very interesting point when he accepted that EU migration was causing problems in the labour market and difficulties with wages. He said that we should limit or change free movement. Can he just flesh out how he thinks we should limit free movement, because I think I would be with him?
Andy Burnham
When I mentioned that, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), I said that we wanted measures to protect the going rate, and then I heard noises from the Government Benches. Where were they when we were trying to get through the agency workers proposals and the posted workers proposals? If Government Members now support putting a floor beneath all British workers, that is a major conversion, but one that I welcome. Let us have a renegotiation that strengthens the workers’ rights provided by Europe, rather than stripping them away. These are the changes that I want to see. Let us protect the wages of electricians and plumbers. Let us not allow them to be undercut by agency workers who come in and are employed on the minimum wage, beneath the wages of the skilled workforce. If we can agree on that ahead of the EU referendum, that would be a major positive consensus that we could take to the British public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy Burnham
I will give way to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), who has been very persistent.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with much of the sentiment behind his remarks this afternoon. However, I recall during the general election campaign catching sight of the Labour party website, which appeared to be selling mugs stating, “Controls on immigration”. Is this another example of a Labour U-turn, or is he in a full 360-degree spin on this issue as well?
Andy Burnham
I am not responsible for all Labour party merchandise. I did not purchase one of those mugs and I am not particularly proud of them. However, if the hon. Lady is saying that there should be no controls on immigration, I am afraid that we will have to part company on that, because there do need to be firm and fair rules to ensure that our immigration system works in the public interest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Barry Gardiner
Does my right hon. Friend share my astonishment at the figures the Home Secretary quoted, because included in the figures that she quoted as costs were what most of us would regard as the investment in the education of children in this country who will in due course be productive in the labour force? To count that as a cost, rather than an investment, rather biases the figures in her favour.
Andy Burnham
I was surprised. A fact-check was issued on that very point, and it is quite clear that the central estimates in the paper by UCL’s Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration suggests that European immigrants have made a net contribution of around £20 billion, and immigrants outside Europe make a small net contribution of around £5 billion—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary seems to dispute this, but she got into trouble last week because she did not have balance in her speech. If she is not careful she is going to develop a reputation for lacking balance on this issue.
Andy Burnham
No, I am going to make some progress.
The other measure that we support in the Bill is the requirement for all front-line public service staff to speak fluent English, which of course is a sensible proposal. However, I believe that, in legislating on these matters, we all have a responsibility to bear in mind at all times that this is the most difficult and sensitive of policy areas. Unlike other issues that we debate in this House, this one has the potential to cause real harm and strife in our communities.
We will support the Government when they get the balance right, but I want to be clear about what we will not do. We will not support legislation that is introduced in haste or that is not backed up by clear evidence. That is the problem with the Bill. Parts of it appear to have been drafted on the same beer mat and in the same pub as the Home Secretary’s speech to the Conservative party conference in Manchester. It is legislation driven by a desire to be seen to be doing something and to get headlines.
Caroline Lucas
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that international student numbers should be removed entirely from net migration figures, because otherwise we risk losing key international talent as well as undermining many local economies, such as Brighton’s, that depend on them to a great deal?
Andy Burnham
I think that is where the Home Secretary is beginning to cut an isolated figure, as she did last week at her party’s conference. I understand that her own Cabinet colleagues are making the same argument to her—the Chancellor of the Exchequer got dangerously close to making the same argument on his recent trip to China. The hon. Lady is right. If we are looking for an area where there is economic benefit to the country in the long term, it is absolutely that of welcoming to this country students who will then commit themselves to the country for the rest of their working lives.
The critical response to the Home Secretary’s speech last week did not come just from the usual suspects on the Labour Benches. The Daily Telegraph called it
“awful, ugly, misleading, cynical and irresponsible”,
while the Institute of Directors, no less, dismissed it as
“irresponsible rhetoric and pandering to anti-immigration sentiment”—
serious words. They were not alone. The public can spot any attempt to play politics with this issue from a million miles away, and that is why the Home Secretary got the reaction she did. She claimed in Manchester that immigration was undermining social cohesion. I put it to her that legislating in haste without clear evidence and bringing forward half-baked, divisive measures is far more likely to do precisely that.
Mr Charles Walker
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about immigration, but the Leader of the Opposition, his boss, has said that there should be no borders in this country anywhere—forget the European Union. He said during the Labour leadership contest that we should have open borders. Does the right hon. Gentleman share that view?
Andy Burnham
I stood alongside him and he said no such thing, so I will move on from that pointless intervention.
A number of organisations—Amnesty International, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Justice, the TUC and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—have expressed serious reservations about the Bill. They believe it could damage social cohesion, force children into destitution, undermine efforts to tackle human trafficking and modern slavery, erode human rights and civil liberties, and lead to widespread discrimination.
Let me take those issues in turn, starting with the potential for discrimination. Clause 12 in part 2 amends the Immigration Act 2014 to make it a criminal offence for a landlord to rent premises to an individual with no immigration status, punishable by five years in prison. The measure is intended to underpin the national roll-out of the Government’s right to rent scheme, as the Home Secretary said. I am not against asking landlords to carry out reasonable checks of identity documents, as they already do, but there are a couple of points to make. First, landlords are not border or immigration experts, they are not trained in reading official paperwork from around the world, and they are not experts in spotting forged documents, so on what basis are we planning to outsource immigration control to them? Will not the regulatory burden that this will impose on landlords be way beyond the capacity that many can manage? Secondly, given all that, is it really proportionate to threaten them with jail, and will not that have a major impact on the housing market and the way it works?
The House will recall that in the previous Parliament the Government tried to bring forward the same proposals, but given the huge implications, not least for private landlords, they were forced to back down and pilot them. A commitment was given to this House that the findings of the pilot would be presented to us before the Government proceeded any further. That was the commitment given by those on the Front Bench. We learned yesterday that that commitment will not be honoured. Although the Home Office has conducted its study, it will not present its findings until the Committee stage. That is not good enough. This House should not be in a position where it is being asked by the Home Secretary to vote tonight on measures that could have a huge impact in every constituency represented here today without evidence for what those measures might do. It is not just a discourtesy; it is downright dangerous. She is asking us to be complicit in legislating in haste, and this House should have none of it.
Let me explain why. We know that right to rent could cause widespread discrimination, not just against migrants but against British citizens. In the absence of the Government’s study, an independent survey was carried out by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. It found that in the west midlands, the pilot area, 42% of landlords said that right to rent had made them less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport, while 27% were now more reluctant—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has said—to engage with those with foreign accents or names. Those are very serious findings. Why on earth is the Home Office not presenting its own information to the House so that we can establish whether it is correct?
Barry Gardiner
The shadow Home Secretary will know that my constituency was the first in the UK to have more people voting at the last election who were born outside the UK but now had the right to live and vote here. The panic that these measures is causing among landlords in my constituency, and the fears that they have because of the uncertainties of this Bill, will mean widespread discrimination for incoming students and other people who landlords fear may get them into trouble. They simply will not rent these properties. That is a major problem for this Bill and for good community relations in this country.
Andy Burnham
The JCWI believes that the figures I quoted are likely to underestimate the scale of the problem because of the nature and timing of the survey, but also because the problems are likely to be magnified much further in London, where there is a much bigger private rented sector and many more migrants. It says that
“these proposals will only…deepen the discrimination”
that already exists against people like those in my hon. Friend’s constituency who are seeking a tenancy.
When is the Home Secretary going to publish these conclusions, and why are we in this position today? In failing to produce the evidence, she has simply not made the case for the measures that she wants the House to vote on tonight. This is a major change in the law and she has not made the case for it.
Thankfully, the days when landlords displayed unwelcoming notices in the windows of their lodgings are gone, hopefully for good, but these document checks could legitimise a new wave of discrimination which, by being hidden, could be far harder to challenge. Only last week at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister highlighted how young people from black and Asian backgrounds face discrimination when they send out their CV, purely on the basis of their name. He was right to do so, and it was refreshing to hear it from a Conservative Prime Minister. But if he was really genuine, this question follows: why is he legislating to create exactly the same situation—the same everyday discrimination—in the housing market against people with foreign-sounding names? If he really believed what he said, he should ask his Home Secretary to think again.
Let me turn to employment—another area where there could be major unintended consequences if the Bill passes in its current form. I said earlier that we support measures to tackle illegal working that build on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which I helped to take through as a junior Home Office Minister, but we have major reservations about the new offence of illegal working in clause 8. In the words of Justice, “it is unnecessary and risks undermining important efforts made over recent years to address issues such as trafficking and modern-day slavery.”
Justice does not believe the assurances that were given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) by the Home Secretary. The sanctions that could be applied to an individual range from confiscation of wages right up to imprisonment. Justice says:
“Fear of prosecution and imprisonment is likely to deter the vulnerable, such as trafficked women and children, who are working illegally from seeking protection and reporting rogue employers and criminal gangs.”
What evidence can the Home Secretary give the House to show that that would not be the case? More broadly, this new offence will merely strengthen the arm of unscrupulous employers and reduce the likelihood of any employee coming forward to report them. For that reason, rather than tackling illegal working, is not the Bill likely to have the opposite effect and potentially increase the size of the black economy?
Lady Hermon
May I push the right hon. Gentleman’s party colleagues a little further? When campaigning to change the worst bits of this Bill—and there are some really dreadful bits—will they include the provision of guarantees whereby those who are trafficked as slaves through human trafficking and end up in the United Kingdom are given the same defences as those who are protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Those defences must be replicated in this Bill. Will he confirm that his party will support those changes?
Andy Burnham
Justice does not accept the assurances that were given by the Home Secretary. I can therefore tell the hon. Lady that we will co-operate with her in Committee, if she takes part in it, to get those assurances into the Bill, because she is right to call for them.
Let me turn to human rights and civil liberties. The Bill extends the power of the Executive in a number of troubling ways. Part 4, as the Home Secretary said, proposes a major extension of the “deport first, appeal later” approach from foreign national offenders to all human rights claims. What case has the Home Office made to persuade Members that it can safely be given such sweeping powers? It has hardly covered itself in glory over the years with the speed or quality of its decision making. Let us remember that this is a Department that today has a backlog of over 300,000 immigration cases—a Department where up to 50% of the initial decisions that it makes are found to be wrong on appeal. With these figures in mind, are we really ready to give the Home Secretary much greater powers to remove migrants before their appeals have been determined? Again, the Government are asking us to legislate before the impact of the last extension has been fully evaluated. The Equality and Human Rights Commission says that, by denying people the ability to be present at their own appeal, the Bill is potentially in breach of articles 6, 8 and 13 of the European convention on human rights.
I ask all colleagues on both sides of the House to think, before they vote tonight, of the genuine cases they have dealt with and the people they have got to know at their surgeries whom they have rightly helped to stay here in challenging a Home Office decision. They should think of them before they legislate to allow people in a similar position to be removed without being able to attend their own appeal.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I can give my right hon. Friend exactly such an example. One of the many cases my office is dealing with at the moment is that of a Sri Lankan Tamil whose application has been refused and who bears the mental and physical scars of torture. His application is now on appeal. If the Home Secretary’s proposals had been in place, he would already have been returned to Sri Lanka, where, given the human rights situation there, his life would potentially be at risk. I cannot support those measures and I do not understand how the Home Secretary can propose them.
Andy Burnham
I think that in their heart of hearts a lot of Government Members are not able to support the measures, because they have seen in their surgeries cases similar to that mentioned by my hon. Friend. They will know people who would have been deported if this Bill had been in place and who would not have been able to exercise their legitimate right to be present in person at their own appeal. That is why my hon. Friend is right to say that this is wrong.
The Bill also extends the power of the Executive to override the independent decisions of the first-tier tribunal with regard to immigration bail. It also allows the Home Secretary to impose bail conditions, including Executive electronic tagging. That raises important issues about the rights of people in our judicial system, and it could undermine the independence of our courts. Again, what confidence has the Home Office given us that it can be trusted with those powers? There is evidence that, under the coalition Government between 2011 and 2014, £15 million was paid out in damages for unlawful detention and abuse of the powers the Home Office already has.
Richard Fuller
Does the Labour party intend to table amendments to set a time limit for keeping people in immigration detention and to protect pregnant women and victims of torture, rape and international conflict from detention in this country?
Andy Burnham
Personally speaking, in my view those people and children should not be in detention. We need to take a look at how this country has approached these issues over a number of years. I would be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman on a cross-party basis, to address those issues. That is what we should do.
My final concern with the Bill relates to vulnerable children. [Interruption.] These are important issues and the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) would do well to listen to them before rushing into the Lobby to vote for the proposals without any evidence to support them.
Clause 34 proposes to remove support from families with children. Let me be honest—that was piloted by our Government, but it was rightly abandoned because of the effects it had. In a parliamentary debate in 1999, when those provisions were suggested, it was said that
“all children on British soil should be given the same protection…no child should go without protection…We are concerned about the welfare of children, who should not suffer under any circumstances, whoever their parents are and whatever their basis for being in the country.”—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 418-421.]
Those are fine sentiments, and they came from the then Conservative Opposition. I say to Government Members that what was right then is right now. No child should face destitution in our country, whoever they are, wherever they come from.
One of the most powerful moments in the Prime Minister’s conference was when he talked about his response to the photograph of Alan Kurdi. It was powerful because it spoke to our common humanity and our instinct to protect children, whatever their circumstances. That is why the Bill is not supportable until those measures have been dropped.
In conclusion, the House will notice that we have not gone down the route of outright opposition in framing our response. As I said at the beginning, there are measures we support and we have set them out in our reasoned amendment. However, when balanced against the other concerns that I have highlighted in my speech, the scales tip towards preventing the progress of the Bill.
If the Government are prepared to change the Bill to address the fundamental problems I have outlined, I would be prepared to reconsider our position. As long as they stay in, however, we will take a stand against them for what is right and for what we should represent as a country.
The truth is that the Bill is driven by the wrong motive—a desire to be seen to be doing something, to generate headlines. That is the problem that lies behind it. Such is the scale of the Government’s failure on immigration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North said, and such is the size of the gap between the rhetoric and the reality, that they are now resorting to ever more drastic, desperate measures to give the impression of action.
The Government promised to cut net migration to tens of thousands. It currently stands at a record 330,000 and there is no evidence to suggest that anything in the Bill will bring that down. There is evidence, however, to suggest that it could cause real harm in every constituency represented in this House.
Government Members might be happy to legislate without evidence, but we will not follow them. We will give no support to a Government pandering to prejudice and legislating in haste to make Britain a more hostile and unwelcoming country. That is why I move the reasoned amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. If it falls, I will ask the House to oppose this unpleasant and insidious Bill.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his new role as shadow Home Secretary. I also congratulate the Government on introducing this vital Bill and pay tribute to the Home Secretary for her courage in the face of the bien pensant commentariat and the liberal elite. What she did last week was articulate the views of millions of people, including many in my own constituency.
I welcome the Bill, especially those measures that will have a significant impact on illegal working and on illegal immigration in relation to the housing sector, particularly the right to rent. I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, because surely he can see that such housing proposals will ameliorate the sometimes pitiful condition immigrants find themselves in as a result of rapacious slum landlords. He does not seem to recognise that.
The Bill also specifically establishes the common sense premise that it is we—this sovereign Parliament—that should ultimately be responsible for who comes to our country, not some supranational body such as the European Union. Frankly, if it is good enough for the Germans to casually disregard the Schengen agreement in an emergency, we should at least, in a measured, reasonable and moderate way, be able to make our own policy.
Wes Streeting
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could give us some insight into what the Prime Minister is asking for in his renegotiation, specifically on freedom of movement and migration.
Mr Jackson
That is a fair question, but it is way above my pay grade, so I will move swiftly on. I will, however, touch on those issues later.
The fact is that the Labour party has not learned any lessons. It has collective amnesia about what happened on 7 May. The reason it got only 232 seats is that very many of its bedrock, blue-collar supporters did not trust it on immigration and decided to elect other people—or, indeed, to vote for a party such as UKIP—because they trusted them more. That is lamentable, but that is what happened to the Labour party, although you would not think it to listen to them.
The Government also have a very strong mandate to introduce this Bill, as a result of an overall majority. It is certainly the case that, for the first time in probably 25 years, immigration is the No. 1 issue for voters. According to an Ipsos MORI poll at the end of September, it is more important than the health service, the economy, jobs and the environment—56% of people said that the No. 1 issue was immigration.
At least the former shadow Chancellor had the good grace, at the 2014 Labour conference, to apologise for the big errors that were made under the Labour Government, particularly in respect of the free movement directive. What I found positive in the speech of the right hon. Member for Leigh is that he is prepared to look at the directive’s impact on certain areas, whether Leigh, Dudley North, Peterborough or other parts of the country.
Goodness knows, we have to address this matter because it is a major issue of concern. In my constituency, unrestricted immigration, largely under the Labour party—to the extent that 34,000 national insurance numbers were issued to EU migrants between 2004 and 2011 in a city of 156,000 people—has had a big impact on the delivery of core public services such as housing and health. We have a primary school places crisis in my constituency because of the sheer weight of the number of people coming from the European Union. Yes, we welcome people who are hard-working, decent, civic-minded and law-abiding and who will accept our British values, but we cannot cope with unrestricted immigration. In that respect, this Government are doing exactly the right thing.
As the right hon. Gentleman and the House may know, on 31 October 2012 I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to disapply the European Union free movement directive 2004. That was not a Europhobic response of closing the doors; it was about nuancing and finessing the free movement directive—the pull factors—as has been done in places such as Spain, which has suffered from the problem of 50% youth unemployment. Unfortunately, the Government did not take on board those arguments at the time. I commend them for now doing so. We should establish the fact that we believe in the free movement of labour and people; yet I do not think that it is unreasonable for us to make a value judgment on the people we want to come to our country. The free movement directive has not been nuanced in the way it should have been.
No evidence has ever been produced—both Migration Watch and Balanced Migration have made this point several times—that immigration is necessarily “a good thing”. There is no evidence for that. There is perhaps no evidence that it is a pernicious or bad thing, but there is certainly no cumulative evidence, in terms of the delivery of public services, that it is a good thing. If I take only the issue of low wages, it is obviously the case, as is proved by what data there are, that although immigration may not drive down wages, it certainly restrains wages at a certain level for indigenous workers, particularly low-skilled people or those with no skills and young people.
David T. C. Davies
Is my hon. Friend aware that the UCL report mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) came from a university that has lobbied heavily for more immigration, presumably so that it can make money and line its own pockets from people coming here? Is he aware that the conclusion to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was based on one of various different scenarios and that the figures have been taken apart, as I have already found out just by looking it up on the internet?
Mr Jackson
I think that was the CReAM study, but it was certainly not the cream of the crop because it looked at the most optimistic scenarios and its methodology has been disputed by many other academics.
We simply cannot countenance a net migration figure of 330,000. Migration Watch was criticised some years ago for predicting—accurately—that 50,000 Romanians and Bulgarians would come to this country. As I have already mentioned, they have a higher preponderance to become benefit recipients. That may not be the case for all non-EU migrants and for first-stage EU migrants—those from France and Germany—but it certainly is the case for second-stage migrants. Why would it not be the case, given that wages are demonstrably much lower in places such as Romania and Bulgaria than they are in the UK, so they get paid less than other people while working here and they claim more?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Jackson
No, I must make some progress.
There is a problem and it must be looked at. Let us consider schools: three in five schools will experience capacity problems by 2018. There are major issues in Peterborough, as I have already said. Some 68% of primary school pupils in my constituency do not speak English as their first language. That in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but it inevitably has an impact on attainment given the resource implications for teacher training and for getting teachers with the right skills. Actually, when a Polish child speaks good English, they flourish, for instance in science and maths, but that is very difficult without specific help.
In 2013 it was estimated, I think by the Department for Communities and Local Government, that it cost £140 million a year to provide translation and interpretation services. That is a major issue, and I have already mentioned healthcare and housing.
Mr Jackson
No, I do not have the time, and you are looking at me in an admonishing way, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I just say two things? If I were to bring out my inner Marxist, I would say that of course big business, such as that represented by the Institute of Directors, wants to continue to import low-paid workers to drive down costs—bears do their ablutions in the wood, the Pope is still Catholic, and big business always wants people to come into this country and outprice indigenous workers—but would that big business concentrated more on apprenticeships, long-term planning and training.
Finally, let me say that I wish the Prime Minister well in his work towards finding a settlement in his negotiations with the European Union, but it is massively important that the centrality of the free movement directive is at the heart of it. I tell the House that pocket-book issues—people’s jobs and future, and prosperity and growth—are important, but if people feel that there will ultimately be an irrevocable cultural change in their country that they can do nothing about, they will vote to leave the European Union. He must be very mindful of that.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence. We have a lot to be proud of in this country in relation to the work we have done for genuine asylum seekers, as a beacon of hope across the world and as the No. 1 country in the world for soft power, but that is not the same as tacitly agreeing with, doing nothing about and turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. This is a good Bill that is long overdue. It is supported by my constituents and the British people. I wish it well, and I will support it enthusiastically tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the SNP spokesperson, who will not be subject to a time limit, I must say that 33 Members wish to speak in the debate, which means that after he sits down there will be a limit of six minutes per speech. With that in mind, I call Stuart C. McDonald.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his new role. I agree with much of what he said. We on the SNP Benches acknowledge, are proud of the fact and prefer to emphasise that people who choose this country as their new home make a tremendous contribution to our public services, our economy, our culture and, most importantly for many of our citizens, our family lives.
From our point of view, the Bill does not deserve a Second Reading because—it is important to put this on the record—we regard the Government’s net migration target of tens of thousands as entirely unhelpful, as well as utterly unrealistic, and the Bill will bring its realisation not a second closer. Indeed, I genuinely doubt whether any member of the Government thinks that that target is achievable. That is why it is fundamentally dishonest to continue to go through the motions of pursuing it. A target that is virtually impossible for the Government to deliver can only further undermine public confidence in government and in immigration control. A Bill designed to pursue a bad target is likely to lead to bad law, and so it is with this Immigration Bill. In a sense, this is immigration theatre: the Government want to be seen to be doing something, so they go through the motions of yet another Immigration Bill—and to hell with the consequences.
That is our starting point in considering the Bill, and although that is clearly one of the key issues we need to address, the other issue that all hon. Members must consider, regardless of whether they agree with us about the net migration target, is different. For even those in the Chamber who want immigration to be cut back need to ask themselves: what will the Bill achieve in reality, where is the evidence for that and what will the cost be in terms of civil liberties, human rights, the rule of law, community cohesion and the other aspects of life in this country that we hold dear? Regardless of one’s starting point in this debate, when those simple tests are applied, the Bill fails them utterly. It therefore does not deserve a Second Reading.
The Bill fails those simple tests because if it is to be effective and achieve anything, it requires effective Government agencies. Is there any area of policy where the Government have proven less effective, reliable and up to the job than immigration? John Reid described the immigration directorate as “not fit for purpose” in 2006. Just two years ago, the Home Secretary said that
“the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough.”
She described it as a “troubled organisation” that
“struggles with the volume of its casework”.
She criticised its IT systems and its reliance on manual data entry and paper files. She said:
“The agency is often caught up in a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcement of its own policies”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1500-1501.]
She abolished the UK Border Agency.
Are we really to believe that UK Visas and Immigration is now so well organised that we can feel comfortable providing it and its officers with swathes of new powers and responsibilities, while sweeping away its accountability to courts and tribunals? The Home Secretary may be formidable but, with respect, she is not a miracle worker. Another round of viciously complex legislation is the last thing we need, as anyone who deals with UK Visas and Immigration, including hon. Members, will surely understand.
The Bill also fails the tests because to be effective it will rely on civilians, including landlords and landladies. We are setting off down a road of amateur immigration control, as if we are to become a nation of immigration officers. Again, anyone who deals regularly with immigration work, including hon. Members, will be well aware of what a complex issue this is. It is not one in which it is appropriate for amateurs to be involved in enforcement. As with decisions of the Home Office, we search in vain in the Bill for proper rights of appeal and redress against amateur enforcement decisions. Indeed, judicial scrutiny of evictions is torn apart.
The Bill fails because it is not based on evidence of what is effective in ensuring that immigration rules are complied with, as the shadow Home Secretary said. The clearest example, which he set out, is the so-called right to rent provisions. The House was assured by Ministers that the right to rent legislation would remain light touch and be tested thoroughly, with the results of the tests being used to inform further development. Yet here we are, several months after the Prime Minister announced its roll-out, with proposals to move away from the soft-touch approach envisaged by hon. Members. The House is yet to see the results of the Government’s pilot scheme. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that that is a most unacceptable way of treating the House.
What was the point of the Government consulting on asylum support, when the Bill was published just a week after the consultation closed, without any Government analysis of the responses, let alone a reaction? Much of the evidence that is available on employment, right to rent and asylum support suggests that the Bill will, in some respects, make immigration control more difficult by driving people and families away from regular contact with immigration authorities. This is a politically motivated, rather than evidence-led, piece of legislation.
The Bill not only fails the tests but becomes dangerous when we consider the costs that will come with it. Even if it might somehow shave a pitiful few thousand off the net migration figure, what price are we paying to do that? The effects of the Bill should appal traditional Conservatives. It will tie up landlords and landladies in immigration red tape and put them at risk of prison sentences. It will arm immigration officers with broad new powers. Most fundamentally, it will strike a significant blow against community cohesion.
The Home Secretary spoke about community cohesion last week, yet her Government’s explicit and almost dystopian goal is to create a “hostile climate”, as if we can hermetically seal off the bad migrants, while the rest of the multicultural UK goes about its business as usual. That approach reached its lowest ebb with the horrendous “go home” vans, which illustrated the key point that the hostile climate that the Government seek to create affects all of us who live in it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of the integration networks in cities and communities across Scotland? During the recess, I visited the Maryhill integration network, which does a huge job in helping people to adapt to Scottish society. The stories that I heard from immigrants and asylum seekers there would be enough to make anyone weep. Ministers ought to meet the integration networks to experience at first hand the issues that face asylum seekers in our country.
Stuart C. McDonald
That is precisely the sort of work that the Government should support, rather than going through the motions of pursuing their impossible net migration target.
Andy Burnham
I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has introduced his remarks and for what he has said. He talked about right to rent. Does he agree that, in the absence of any evidence from the Government on the pilot, we have to accept what has been produced by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants? As I said in my speech, its findings are extremely troubling. If we accept those findings, it is impossible to support the Bill tonight because of its potential to cause widespread discrimination against British citizens too.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I, too, have read the JCWI report and will refer to its findings shortly.
In summary, the Bill pursues the wrong goals by the wrong methods and at tremendous cost, so we should decline to give it a Second Reading.
I shall outline briefly our views on the key clauses and my hon. Friends will expand on those views in the course of the debate. Not wishing to be relentlessly negative, let me turn first to one part of the Bill that is positive. We welcome the provisions at the start of the Bill that will establish a director of labour market enforcement. We have questions about resourcing, powers and whether all the necessary agencies will be involved, but the principle has our support. We agree that the focus of our attention should be on employers who exploit undocumented labour to the detriment not just of undocumented workers, but resident workers who are competing for jobs and businesses that comply with the rules.
Drew Hendry
The Government say that they want to tackle slavery and exploitation. Does my hon. Friend agree that these measures will drive more people into vulnerable situations and put them at risk of being exploited in the labour market?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill holds that risk. I will turn in a moment to the criminalisation of working, which might cause that problem.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The SNP spokesman is right that there should be a greater emphasis on employers who employ illegal immigrants, but does he accept that even the powers that the Government have at present are not being used against employers? Looking at civil penalty notices, less than half have been paid, a third have been written off and the rest remain unpaid. There does not seem to be enforcement against employers even under the legislation that is available.
Stuart C. McDonald
Once again, I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. It has been a habit in the field of immigration to take the approach that if at first you don’t succeed, legislate and legislate again. We need not constant legislation but to use the powers that the Government already have.
The Government must focus on enforcement. We agree that we should look again at further sanctions for those who exploit undocumented labour. We will therefore look sympathetically but carefully at the wording of the proposed amended criminal offence for employers.
We have significant concern about the proposals to criminalise undocumented workers contained in clause 8. The notion of criminalising a person for working is controversial, especially given that prosecutions are already possible for breaches of immigration law under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said. The problem is an absence not of criminal sanctions but of proper enforcement measures by Government agencies. We believe strongly that the speculative possibility of shaving a small amount off the net migration target will be outweighed by the significant danger highlighted by organisations that work with victims of trafficking, and that some of the most vulnerable workers will be put in an even more vulnerable position. The Home Secretary and the Government have done good work on trafficking, slavery and exploitation, and it would be sad if that were to be undone by pushing exploited workers even further underground because of the fear of criminalisation. If that is the effect, such measures will make immigration and labour market enforcement harder rather than easier.
Another area where dangers outweigh speculative benefits concerns the right to rent provisions. The shadow Secretary of State referred to the helpful study by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Its findings are absolutely stark, and include poor compliance and widespread ignorance among the unfortunate landlords and landladies who are supposed to police the right to rent. More significantly, those findings suggest that landlords are—perhaps understandably—less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport, which includes more than one in six of the UK population. There were also increased feelings of discrimination among people who have been refused a tenancy. We therefore object strongly to these proposals as they can only exacerbate such problems. We are equally opposed to the fact that the new more punitive measures—and indeed other measures on licensing—can be extended to Scotland by subordinate legislation without full parliamentary scrutiny in this Chamber, and without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, where decisions on housing should be made.
We have serious concerns about part 3 of the Bill which, in combination with other measures, would deliver a stunning extension of powers to immigration officers and others who are not part of the police force, and not trained or supervised accordingly. Although we intend to support the reasoned amendment, we have some difficulties with this area, and it would be useful if, when winding up the debate, the spokesperson for the official Opposition said a little more about what new enforcement powers they want.
The Bill provides immigration officers with significant new powers to enter premises, search, seize, retain and arrest, and all in the face of serious reported abuses and evidence of the inefficient exercise of existing powers. We agree with Amnesty International that
“the Home Office should be concentrating on improving its performance with the powers it already possesses rather than being handed still more powers”
and we would require the Government to make a strong case for each new power before we could support them.
Equally troubling new powers are provided to the Home Secretary on bail conditions, which we believe undermine the authority of the independent tribunal. We saw in September that there is widespread cross-party support in this Chamber for changes to immigration detention, but those are not the changes in the Bill. That cross-party support included demand for a 28-day time limit for immigration detention. If the Bill receives a Second Reading, we look forward to tabling an amendment that will include such a time limit, and we will happily work with others to secure that.
Continuing the trend towards a limitation of appeal rights, part 4 of the Bill provides for a sweeping extension of powers to require people to leave and appeal from abroad should an application for an extension of leave be rejected. Let us remember that huge numbers of these appeals are successful, yet they will become infinitely more difficult if appellants are moved hundreds, if not thousands of miles away from their lawyers and their appeal hearing—an unfair immigration trial in absentia. UK citizens will be affected, because if this issue principally concerns family life appeal rights, that disruption will be to family life with those British citizens—families will be split apart; valuable jobs and support will be lost.
Finally, we object to the fact that “destitution” is once more the immigration policy of choice in part 5 of the Bill. We share the concerns of British Red Cross that the provisions in this Bill, including an end to section 95 support for families with children who have exhausted their appeal rights, will force families with children into destitution and put them at risk of harm. Such a measure will also increase the risk of families absconding, and pass a significant increase in costs to local authorities who will still have a duty to prevent children from becoming destitute. The shadow Secretary of State rightly acknowledged a similar pilot project by a previous Labour Government, which found that 35 out of 116 families had disappeared, losing all contact with immigration services. Such measures make immigration control harder, not easier. Again, when the evidence is considered, it tends not to support the Bill.
These are not our only concerns with the Bill, and my hon. Friends will add to my criticisms. Declining the Bill a Second Reading is just a starting point, and the Scottish National party believes that we should be rolling back from the mistakes made by the coalition Government. We should go back to the drawing board to consider how we measure a successful immigration system. At the very least we should recognise that it is utterly inappropriate to include refugees, people’s husbands, wives and children, as well as bright young talent and the leaders of tomorrow who want to come here to study. We should get rid of the so-called right to rent provisions, not back them up with criminal sanctions. We should roll back the financial thresholds imposed on spouse and partner visas that are driving couples apart and creating what the Children’s Commissioner for England has called “Skype families”, and we should end the routine use of immigration detention.
We should address the concerns and challenges that can be caused by migration trends, and instead of scrapping schemes such as the migration impacts fund we should look at improved versions. We should consider schemes that encourage new arrivals to live in those parts of the UK that require them and will benefit from them most, including Scotland. Let devolved nations and regions have powers on immigration.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On that point, I note there is a skills shortage occupation list for Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a skills shortage occupation list for Wales, too?
Stuart C. McDonald
I fully support such measures.
Finally, we must listen to the hugely influential legal figures who told us yesterday that the Government have got it wrong on the refugee crisis. We must introduce safe and legal routes to the UK, as well as to the EU, through broader and more humane family reunion rules, humanitarian visas and relocation schemes for those already in Europe, as well as resettlement schemes for those still in the crisis area. Those are the steps that we would want an honest, bold and forward-thinking Government to take. Instead, we have a regressive, illiberal, ill-considered and inhumane Immigration Bill that should be denied a Second Reading.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Bill, which addresses a very serious issue in a way that confronts the facts as they stand.
I have the honour of representing the Folkestone and Hythe constituency, which includes the channel tunnel. This summer, my constituency was 30 miles or so from the frontline of the migration crisis as it confronted the UK. In the camp outside Calais, known as the jungle, thousands of migrants are waiting to enter the UK. The truth about the conditions in those camps is that we do not know who people are or where they have come from. We do not know which ones are legitimate asylum seekers and which ones are not. Of the surveys done by numerous people who visited the camps during the course of the summer and previously—this is not a new phenomenon—it is quite clear that people in the camps are seeking to enter this country without being detected, without papers and without tickets. They are looking to enter this country without being noticed by the authorities, and then to work, live and be accommodated here without being noticed by the authorities. Some are doing this voluntarily, but others are putting their lives in the hands of dangerous gangs who are trafficking them across Europe and into this country, and who seek to exploit them when they are here.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell me more about those surveys? Who carried them out? How many people did they speak to? Did they have a box to tick that said, “I am trying to sneak into your country undetected”? That is what it sounds like to me.
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady can look at any number of reports made during the summer by various organisations that visited the camps. Why does the hon. Lady think that people are storming the channel tunnel at Coquelles every night? Why does she think people are storming the port of Calais? It is not because they have tickets, visas and passports to come here; it is because they are seeking to enter the country illegally. In doing so, it is clearly evident they are endangering their lives and the lives of other people who use those services too.
The people in the camps have the right, if they want help, to claim asylum where they are. They choose not to do so. Many people in that position are being exploited by very dangerous gangs who are moving people across Europe. The people who have the most to fear from the Bill are those who seek to exploit migrants coming to this country without papers. Migrants have been told not to claim asylum and that they will be looked after privately and secretly once they get here. Those people are exploited. It is the exploiters who have the most to fear from the Bill.
I very much welcome the work the Home Office has done to try to secure our borders. Much of the Bill deals with the consequences of people entering the country without papers and without the legal right to remain, and what we can do about that. Our first obligation is to protect the border itself. The investment the Government have made, along with the French authorities, in securing our border at Calais and Coquelles is hugely significant and hugely welcome. It has greatly reduced the numbers of migrants seeking to enter the country illegally by storming the entrances to the channel tunnel and the port of Dover. As I said before, that not only disrupts services but endangers their lives and the lives of others who use those services. It must be stopped.
I welcome the Home Secretary’s influence in persuading the French Government to provide more of their own resources in policing that frontier. I also welcome the moves passed recently by the French Senate—they are still going through the French National Assembly—to improve French law enforcement capabilities to deal with people seeking to enter this country illegally by storming the frontier at Calais and Coquelles. It is right that there are proper criminal sanctions against people who seek to use criminal damage and criminal trespass as a means to enter this country. I know, from people who work at Eurotunnel who saw the consequences of the actions during the summer, that those actions were not only highly dangerous but threatened to disrupt and even derail services through the tunnel. That would have endangered the lives of other passengers, as well as the lives of the people committing those actions. It is right to protect the migrants and to protect our frontier, and it is right that these important new sanctions are being considered.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
So far the hon. Gentleman has told us an awful lot about the disruption caused by people blatantly ignoring the existing legislation. If people are going to ignore the legislation, making it tougher is not going to help; they will continue to ignore it just the same. What in the Bill will prevent people from trying to get into the UK illegally? Would it not be much better to devote the resources to securing the borders and enforcing the existing legislation, rather than introducing further legislation that will create discrimination in housing and access to other services?
Damian Collins
I set out at the beginning of my remarks the important action the Government and the Home Office have taken to try and secure the borders, but there are additional provisions in the Bill, particularly in part 6, such as the extra maritime checks and enforcement. These provisions will give Border Force the right to board and check vessels that might be carrying people seeking to cross the channel and enter this country illegally. It will give extra powers to law enforcement authorities to pick people up and check vessels to see what is going on. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
There are those who seek to provide accommodation to people with no papers and no right to be in this country and to employ them in large numbers, and it is right that they fear the sanction of being inspected, checked and discovered. They seek to exploit people who understand they have no legal right to be here and do not want the authorities to know they are here. They exploit their concerns about being discovered, and the Bill is a threat to those people and the action they would take.
Damian Collins
I have very little time and I would like to conclude.
It is the people traffickers and exploiters who have the most to fear from the Bill, and it is right that we give the enforcement authorities the extra powers they seek. We want a robust immigration system where people with the right to come to this country can do so, and we want to open this country to the world. We want to attract new talent and bring in people with skills. That is clear. We want a system where legitimate asylum seekers and refugees are granted safety and refuge, which has been a great hallmark of this country for many years.
We do not, however, want a system where people traffickers and smugglers from around the world can say, “If you get into the UK, you won’t be detected. You can stay and will be looked after”. They exploit people’s legitimate concerns and fears, and the Bill seeks to get to the heart of that. It aims to protect a legitimate migration system and to enhance Britain’s reputation as a country that welcomes refugees and people coming to work here but which conducts proper checks on people to make sure they have the right to stay and are legitimate asylum seekers. The ones who have the most to fear are those who seek to evade the authorities and exploit those who evade them. I ask the House to support the Bill.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Home Secretary made her notorious speech in Manchester just a few minutes from my constituency. Had she come down the road, she would have seen tens of thousands of people who came under the contemptuous label she uttered this afternoon: “these people”. “These people”, of whom there are tens of thousands in my constituency, originate from south Asia, east and west Africa, the Caribbean and elsewhere. We are a city of diversity and integration, and the two go together.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) referred to Romanians. Recently in my constituency, an organisation has been set up by people of Romanian origin to integrate further into this country. Next Saturday in my constituency, we will be celebrating Nigerian independence day. This is a country of diversity that ever since the Romans has had people of overseas origin becoming part of its functioning. The Bill attacks them. It is an attack on anybody who is not what might be referred to as a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
I got a letter from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs about a constituent who had been asked to clarify his Christian name. To anyone of any intelligence, the man was a Muslim. That kind of approach happens under this Government: it has never happened before, even under previous Conservative Governments. The Bill creates a new subterranean, pseudo police force to carry out Government policy without being members of the Government’s staff.
Landlords have been recruited, whether they want to be or not—the National Landlords Association has issued a document expressing considerable resentment—to impose a law that they had no say in creating. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees says that landlords are less likely to rent to those with foreign accents or names, or those who do not possess a British passport. That is my parents. They never learned to speak English fluently; they never got British passports —yet they were part of this country and part of a community. Landlords and bank staff are being turned into Government agents. Under this Bill, we have a new bail system that has nothing to do with judges or magistrates and nothing to do with the law—except the law created by this Government.
The national health service wants to bring people from India to be nurses in Manchester, but they cannot get the certificates because the process is so opaque. People coming here as refugees are scared stiff for their lives—something that, thank God, we in this country are not—and are subjected to all kinds of interrogation.
Andy Burnham
As well as providing him with a little more time, I would like my right hon. Friend to consider the effect on his constituency and mine of the changes to the immigration rules that the Government want to introduce with respect to earnings. This could force a lot of nurses currently working in the NHS to leave the country. Nurse training has been cut and the NHS is over-reliant on agency staff; now the Government are about to force thousands of nurses to go back. Does he agree with me that we need a rethink and a change of heart on this issue?
Sir Gerald Kaufman
When I go, as I no doubt shortly shall, for my flu jab, the person who gives it to me would not be regarded by many people who support this Bill as British, but services are being provided for people in this country. The work situation is going to be made more difficult, with potential employees afraid that they will be prosecuted for recruiting people illegally.
I do not know whether the Home Secretary went to any of the many wonderful Asian restaurants when she was in Manchester. My constituency has a “curry mile”, which is one of the best places to go to in the whole of the world for an overseas diet. I wonder how many of them will be under suspicion by the Home Office trying to decide, minutiae by minutiae, whether people are the “right kind” of British, who seem to be the only kind of British that they want to welcome into this country.
As the TUC says, huge poverty will be created by this Government. The children of asylum seekers will live in houses for which the amount of money being made available is £30 and a little bit more. I am proud of this country; I love this country. I do not know, however, whether the Government who are introducing this Bill love the country that Britain really is rather than the country into which they would like to transform it.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Like many, if not most, Members, I was acutely aware long before the general election of just how important the issue of immigration had become to the people in this country. Of all the issues raised with me on the doorstep by my constituents, immigration was unquestionably the number one concern, and scenes throughout the summer, across Europe and in Calais, have done nothing but exacerbate that concern in recent months.
Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcomed the reforms brought about by the Immigration Act 2014, but there is still work to be done. My constituents are absolutely clear about the fact that they want us to control our borders, and that includes dealing with those who have already managed to evade our border controls.
While there are, of course, many benefits to Britain from some controlled immigration, we must face the fact that the current levels are unsustainable. It is well documented that mass immigration forces down wages and makes it more difficult for residents like mine to find work. However, illegal immigration is the major source of frustration and grievance for my residents. I therefore welcome the Bill’s attempts to support working people by clamping down on illegal immigration. These measures will help to protect our public services, and will send a message to those who try to exploit our system for their own gain.
There are those who seek to take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people by promising them a better life in Britain, but the reality for those who arrive is often exactly the opposite, so I welcome the proposals to introduce new, tougher sanctions for rogue employers. It is right that we make it an offence for anyone to employ someone whom he or she knows, or has reason to suspect, is an illegal worker. We cannot allow ruthless criminal gangs to continue to exploit the vulnerable, or to bring undocumented, even potentially dangerous, individuals into the country. The Bill sends a clear message to those gangs: “You will not win.” It also sends a clear message to potential illegal migrants that it will not be as easy to establish themselves in the United Kingdom as they were promised it would be.
Since 2010 the Government have worked hard to support new businesses, many of which have been set up in my constituency. We should be ensuring that those hard-working, law-abiding entrepreneurs are rewarded. Equally, we must punish those who continue to flout the law by employing illegal labour and giving themselves an unfair and illegal competitive advantage. Illegal labour not only exploits the workers whom it employs, but denies work to UK citizens and drives down wages. Businesses that ignore the law should be closed, and those who run them should be prosecuted, and seen to be prosecuted, for their actions.
Legal immigrants can make, and often have made, an enormous and valuable contribution to our society, but there is no doubt that illegal migration, and even the current levels of legal migration, have an adverse effect on our most important public services. By 2024, if current levels are maintained, we shall have to find an extra 900,000 school places. There is already pressure on primary school places in my constituency, and there is even pressure for schools to be built to provide more places. We already have to build 210,000 new homes every year to keep up with population fluctuations. It is hard for anyone to argue that such numbers are sustainable. It is not bigoted to note those facts; we need a pragmatic solution to the problems.
In Castle Point we have a shortage of housing, a shortage of space for housing, and, most acutely, a serious shortage of affordable and private rental accommodation. Hard-working families must wait for accommodation, sometimes for months and months. They naturally feel that it is just plain wrong if even part of the reason for that is illegal workers taking up private rental properties.
Lady Hermon
I know that the hon. Lady takes a particular interest in Northern Ireland, and I hope that she will therefore be as alarmed as I am—along with, I am sure, others on these Benches—that part 7 of the Bill, which requires public sector workers to speak fluent English, does not extend to Northern Ireland. The last time I checked, Northern Ireland was guaranteed its place in the United Kingdom by the Belfast agreement. Why should not part 7, which the hon. Lady praises, apply to it?
Rebecca Harris
I apologise for not having picked up on that point, but I am sure we will be addressing it very vigorously through Northern Irish channels.
Creating a new offence for rogue landlords who fail to take steps to remove illegal migrants from their properties will be a strong reassurance to the public that we are doing all we can to deal with what they feel to be a genuine injustice. It will also be a good way to help better establish the true scale of illegal immigration. Estimates vary wildly, but it is clear that the public perception is that it is a much more widespread problem than reported. Therefore measures that make it harder to live under the radar will increase public confidence, which is currently very much lacking. This Government have already made it much more difficult for immigrants to come to this country and immediately have access to our public services and our welfare system. This legislation will build upon those reforms and will strengthen our commitment to ensuring that only those who come here and contribute to our society can benefit from it.
It is a duty of us all in this House to listen to our constituents and try to address their concerns. I have listened to my constituents in Castle Point and they tell me they want something done about illegal immigration in the UK. This legislation will protect our public services, will further crack down on illegal immigration and will limit the access of illegal migrants to essential services. I welcome these proposals and urge Members to support them.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
In April 1939, a 10-year-old Jewish boy from a place called Ostrava in what was then Czechoslovakia was put on a train by his mum and teenage sisters. He never saw them again; they were killed during the war.
He was the only member of his family able to leave. He arrived in the UK only able to speak three words of English but became the youngest grammar school head teacher in the country, and was honoured by the Queen with an MBE for his education and charity work. He adopted four children, of whom I am the second, so I know all about the benefits that immigration can bring to individuals, our communities and our country.
I also know that immigration is something many people are very worried about. Research from the Oxford Migration Observatory shows immigration has ranked in the top five issues for many years and has ranked as the top issue for our country in many of the most recent polls. There is no point in mainstream politicians trying to ignore this or refusing to listen to people. It is our job to listen to people on this and come up with fair and reasonable ways of addressing their concerns. It is when we fail to do so that reasonable people with legitimate concerns turn to UKIP or, in the past, the BNP.
So I have worked hard to listen to local people in Dudley and I have held dozens of community meetings over the last couple of years on this issue. The truth is that most people are reasonable, fair and pragmatic when it comes to immigration and other contentious issues. Detailed research from British Future shows most people wanting fair controls on immigration but not a closed border. Mainstream politicians should be working in their communities to come up with fair and reasonable solutions to tackle exploitation, the undercutting of wages or some of the other challenges presented by immigration.
That is not, as some have said, “trying to out-UKIP UKIP”. It is being part of a mainstream Labour party that takes the concerns and worries that ordinary people have seriously. The vast majority of the hundreds of people who came to my meetings on immigration and the many thousands who completed the detailed surveys I distributed agree that we should welcome people who come to Britain and work hard and contribute, and they agree that Britain has always provided a safe haven for people fleeing persecution abroad.
Because of that, I welcome plans to help to train the next generation of skilled workers here in Britain instead of hiring from abroad. Our proposals at the election would have required large firms to take on a local apprentice every time they took on a skilled foreign worker, so I think this should go further, but it is good that some funding from skilled worker visas will now be put towards apprenticeships.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman just talking about people from outside Europe, or is he talking about people from within Europe as well? Should there be the same requirements in respect of both?
Ian Austin
I think that jobs should be advertised in Britain before they are advertised abroad. I also think that if large firms or public sector organisations cannot find people in Britain with the necessary skills and have to employ someone from abroad, they should also have to provide an apprenticeship for a British youngster so that we can train up the next generation of British people as well.
At the last election, we also proposed tougher measures to tackle the illegal exploitation of foreign workers, and the creation of a new Home Office unit to enforce the law, so I support the Bill’s proposals for a director of labour market enforcement and for stronger sanctions against those who employ illegal workers. I have always thought that if you want to live in Britain you must be prepared to work hard and pay your way, obey the law and learn to speak English, because there is no other way to play a full role in British society, so it is right that the Bill will make it easier to monitor foreign nationals who have broken the law and to ensure that customer-facing public workers speak fluent English. Most people will think it is also completely right that the Bill proposes to tackle illegal immigration and its links with organised crime, people trafficking and exploitation, which have a knock-on effect on our communities, on wages and on public services.
As we heard earlier, however, the Government have not yet provided any evidence that the trial of plans to intensify the right to rent scheme, which requires landlords to check the immigration status of prospective tenants, has cut illegal migration. Indeed, there are worrying signs that it has made it much harder for British people from other backgrounds to find a home. I do not think that reasonable people would support a measure that could prevent British people who have worked and contributed to this country for decades from finding a home just because they have a foreign-sounding name or a different accent.
The Government must go much further to enforce the minimum wage so that unscrupulous employers cannot exploit foreign labour to cut costs and drive down wages. I want bigger fines for breaking the rules, and a ban on recruitment agencies hiring solely from overseas. We should also introduce changes to benefit entitlement right now, instead of waiting for the outcome of the Prime Minister’s negotiations with the EU. There should be a much clearer relationship between benefits and contributions so that people receive benefits if they have worked and paid in for at least two years. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why people should be able to claim child benefit for children who are living abroad. People in Dudley also want to see tighter border controls. We proposed to introduce a levy on US visitors to pay for 1,000 extra border guards and to do more to strengthen checks for illegal immigrants in Calais.
I would like to see the Government acknowledge that the costs and benefits of immigration are not shared equally across the United Kingdom. Lots of people have moved to places such as Dudley in search of work and a better life, and they are making a contribution. However, immigration can clearly put pressure on public services such as housing, schools and the NHS. The answer, of course, is to build more housing, stop cutting the NHS and ensure that schools have the teachers and staff that they need in order to cope. That could be funded by the benefits of immigration in other parts of the country. We do not get many millionaire American bankers, German city traders or French hedge fund managers moving to the black country. I would like to see an immigration Bill that ensures that the benefits migration brings to some parts of Britain help to fund the extra housing, NHS staff and teachers necessary to reduce the pressures in communities like mine.
I support some measures in the Bill, but I can think of other measures that would address mainstream concerns about immigration while providing fair, reasonable and progressive ways of doing so. Let us focus our efforts on the unscrupulous employers and organised gangs that bring people to this country illegally. Let us strengthen our border force so that Britain can have confidence that the rules are being enforced, and let us ensure that the costs and benefits of immigration are shared across the country.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who is the voice of reason in his party. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), as well as the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who gave one of his inimitable performances a few minutes ago. It is always a pleasure to hear what he has to say.
The Home Secretary made a candid and honest speech the other day. I do not believe that there is anything controversial in stating that every sovereign state should be the sole judge and arbiter of the level of immigration that can be sensibly absorbed and taken care of. The only way effectively to analyse this question is to examine the integration of the migrant communities into Britain and to look at their impact on essential services such as schools, housing and the NHS. Her conclusions were in line with the view expressed by the vast majority of people in this country—that the current levels of migration are totally unsustainable. That is why the UK must address the challenge of completely regaining control of its borders. That means carrying on the policy of strict controls on non-EU migration, but this must be in the national interest—I wish to say something about the nursing profession in a moment. It also must mean Britain looking again at the EU principle of the free movement of people across Europe. I feel that strongly. To my mind, it will be one of the red lines that will come up in the future referendum, and I say that as someone who wants to have reasons for voting to stay in Europe, if at all possible.
Peter Grant
Does the hon. Gentleman also have a concern about the 700,000 to 1 million UK citizens who live in other EU countries? Is he suggesting that they should not be allowed to live there and should be forced to come back to the UK, where they clearly do not want to be?
Mr Bellingham
I agree with the hon. Gentleman 100% on that. One must distinguish between the right to travel in the UK and people retiring, and people going to and working in any country they feel like and claiming benefits. This is a huge issue, but it is a debate we cannot have now, because you would call me to order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The Bill contains a number of important measures, and I agree with the Home Secretary that it builds on the coalition’s Immigration Act 2014. I welcome the approach of looking with a relentless focus at the mechanisms of the labour market. In the past, a constituency such as mine, with a large food and agriculture sector, has been plagued by the actions of illegal gangmasters—now licensed under the Gangmasters Licensing Authority—and the unscrupulous behaviour of some rogue employers and rogue landlords. That is why we need additional measures to deal with and clamp down on those residual practices taking place. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point put it well when she pointed out that there is still some way to go, and we must have zero tolerance towards any malpractice.
In many ways, the Bill is a modest measure and many parts of it are long overdue. I particularly welcome the new powers that are going to be given to immigration officers and the powers that are going to be given to Border Force to target boats in British waters. I find it bizarre that hitherto Border Force has had no power to target boats in British waters that officers suspect of helping illegal migrants enter Britain, and I am glad that that is going to be changed.
As I said, I want briefly to say something about the nursing crisis in this country, not only because I have been in talks with my local hospital, but because I noticed that yesterday Jan Stevens, the chief nurse at London’s biggest NHS hospital trust, pointed out that there is likely to be a real problem in that trust and in other hospitals as a result of the cap being applied. She has estimated that it will affect up to nearly 3,700 nurses working in the UK and will deter others from coming here. She said:
“It would be catastrophic if we had to send all our international nurses home as a result of the cap.”
The Queen Elizabeth hospital in my constituency is excellent, but it faces a number of financial challenges, the biggest of which is the amount of money being spent on agency nurses—that figure is rising very rapidly. I know that the hospital, under the excellent leadership of Dorothy Hosein, the chief executive officer, and Edward Libbey, the chairman, has been making every effort to employ local nurses. They have held a number of events locally, including roadshows to try to attract people back into nursing, but after a great deal of effort they have secured the return of only one local nurse to the hospital. In the past, they have recruited a significant number of EU nurses from places such as Portugal and Spain, but I have to tell the House that this pool of talent is slowly diminishing and they now have to look further afield, to India and the Philippines, where there is a ready supply of nurses who speak very good English, who want to come here and who are properly qualified.
Ian Austin
Is the answer to this to enable more British youngsters to train as nurses in this country and to expand the number of training places available? Surely that is the answer.
Mr Bellingham
I entirely agree, but it is of no consolation to a hospital in Norfolk that needs to recruit 90 nurses over the next few months to avoid those penal payments to agencies. I agree that this is a matter that the NHS and the Ministers in the Department of Health must deal with. There is a long lead-in time; we cannot suddenly train nurses. There are many retired nurses whom we need to bring back into the profession, but many of them cannot come back, or do not want to come back.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was at today’s Health questions, but the Minister proudly claimed that he had record numbers of nurses in training. In fact, there are four applicants for every nurse training place in Britain today, and we are training fewer nurses than we did in 2009.
Mr Bellingham
I absolutely take on board what the right hon. Lady says. It is very important indeed that Ministers look urgently and with relentless energy at that problem. If they do not look at it or at the training and the supply of nurses, these problems will continue. In the meantime, I ask the Minister of State to look very carefully at what I have said and tell me exactly what the updated position is of the Migration Advisory Committee. I gather that it is looking at evidence being produced by a number of trusts around the country. If the problem is not addressed, hospitals such as the one in my constituency will be running up debts completely beyond their control.
We are living in an ever more troubled and turbulent world. I do not think that any of us could have been anything but moved by those pictures of Alan Kurdi, the three-year-old Syrian boy who was drowned along with 12 other Syrians. When I look at the tragedy going on in Syria, I fear that it will be replicated in other countries around the world such as in Yemen and Egypt. Sudan, too, is in a very vulnerable state. I support the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, but feel that it is essential that we target people in country, which is why I strongly favour the idea of safe havens, overseen by the UN and the EU. It makes far more sense to have safe havens in the south of Dimashq and in the al-Suwayda province along the Jordanian border. It is a turbulent world and we face many challenges, but this Bill is a small, but essential step in helping Britain to secure its borders.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I wish to concentrate my remarks on part 1 of the Bill.
Less than two years ago, in November 2013, the Home Secretary said that combating modern slavery was her top priority. It was an aim that won wide support on both sides of the House and it found expression in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but this Bill risks undoing the progress made with that Act.
I am sure that the Government do not intend to undermine their own legislation so soon after it has become law, but all the evidence shows that the more vulnerable workers are, the stronger the hand of the gangmasters over them and the less likely they are to come forward and report their abusers. So what does this Bill do? It increases their vulnerability and strengthens the hand of the gangmasters. It does that by threatening exploited workers with 12 months in prison if they are deemed to have committed the offence of “illegal working” in clause 8.
Let us be in no doubt: many will think that they have committed that offence even if they have not. Some 78% of those the National Crime Agency says have been exploited for labour in the UK actually have the right to work here as European economic area nationals, but rights awareness among these workers is very low, and options are limited, which allows unscrupulous employers to hold the threat of removal, and now imprisonment, over them—even when it is not a real possibility.
The charity Focus on Labour Exploitation, which works directly with victims of trafficking and of which I am a trustee, has identified three drivers of labour exploitation: the feeling among migrant workers that they deserve less, or have fewer rights than UK citizens; the lack of checks on labour standards in the workplace, from health and safety to minimum wage enforcement; and a fear of officials, especially immigration officials.
On each of the three drivers, the Bill makes the situation worse. First, on the rights of migrant workers, it puts the focus on immigration status as a condition of asserting labour rights. On that note, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister why the definition of “worker” in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 has not been used. The Bill criminalises the exploited worker who, whether they are committing the offence of illegal working or not, can be treated or threatened by a gangmaster as if they are.
Secondly, on labour market enforcement, it is deeply unfortunate that the review was published only today, meaning that we did not have the opportunity to consider it fully before the debate, and that the consultation will still close on 9 November, not giving adequate time for proper consideration of the proposals. From the quick look I have had at the Government’s proposals, I have found no evidence of the increased resources or powers that are clearly needed for the director of labour market enforcement. Last year, the Migration Advisory Committee powerfully found that
“on average, a firm can expect a visit from HMRC inspectors once in every 250 years and expect to be prosecuted once in a million years.”
Let us be clear that those of us who were calling for an extension of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s remit during the debate on the Modern Slavery Bill meant a genuine extension, building on the good work in the sectors where it already operates, and not the pick-and-mix approach with no additional resources suggested by the Bill and the consultation.
The third driver of labour exploitation is the overlap between labour market enforcement and immigration enforcement, which is at the heart of the Bill. The very decision to include labour in market enforcement measures in an Immigration Bill is hugely counter-productive, and the mistrust of immigration officials exists regardless of migrant status. The consequence will be that labour exploitation is not rooted out and that it will continue, contrary to all the wishes of this Government, to be a pull factor for migration.
In May, the Prime Minister set out the need for what he described as the labour market enforcement agency, of which the post of director suggested in the Bill falls far short. He set out that ambition to prevent exploitation and to stop migrants undercutting British workers.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
There is one further area of what we might call “legacy work” from the Modern Slavery Act, which is the position of overseas domestic workers. That was being reviewed by James Ewins, but we have heard nothing about it. Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that we will hear something about that review during the Bill’s passage?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, as he puts his finger on one of the crucial issues in the 2015 Act about which many of us have reservations and which needs to be addressed. That is exactly the point that I am making: unless we give migrants the confidence to come forward and whistleblow on exploitation we will weaken the position and strengthen the hands of the gangmasters. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will fail to meet the Prime Minister’s aspiration to prevent exploitation and to stop migrants undercutting British workers. I genuinely hope that the Minister, for whom I have high regard, will take on board the comments of those of us who worked constructively with the Government during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill so that we do not undo its legacy.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I am pleased to support the Bill, which will, I know, enjoy the support of many of the residents I represent across Pendle for the range of important measures it introduces and for those that it strengthens. There is, of course, deep concern that our migration system needs to be much better controlled in general and, perhaps above all, there is concern that politicians have failed to get to grips with the scale of net migration. That came across loud and clear on the doorstep during the election campaign, as has been said by many hon. Members.
Therefore I welcome the Bill as part of the Government’s ongoing work to restore trust in politics and to improve our immigration system for those who need it to work, both British residents and migrants alike. Not least, there is a concern about the harm that some migrants suffer when they arrive in Britain, only to be introduced to a life of exploitation and abuse. I wish to focus particularly on the Government’s proposals to tackle labour market abuses and illegal working—issues which, sadly, we have had to deal with in Pendle and across east Lancashire.
On 11 September—last month—one of Britain’s first interim slavery and trafficking risk orders was successfully applied for by Lancashire police and served on a man from Nelson in my constituency because of his alleged treatment of two migrants from Poland, whom he stands accused of exploiting and forcing into servitude. The case is to be heard in court next month so it may be best for me not to comment further until we know its outcome. However, I am encouraged that our police now have these powers given to them through the previous Government’s historic Modern Slavery Act 2015 to protect those at risk from modern slavery, very many of whom will be migrants forced to work or live in appalling conditions for appalling pay, if they are even paid at all. The Bill will help us to tackle such issues further.
Many in Pendle will be surprised to learn that under the current rules there is little to prevent a business found to have used illegal workers from carrying on its business. Some employers will continue to operate their business, and there is a risk that they may still use illegal workers, possibly not detected by immigration officers as they were not present at the premises at the time of the visit. The new powers for immigration officers to close down premises for up to two days, like the closure notices served on premises associated with nuisance or disorder, may often not be appropriate, especially if an employer is co-operating with officials or where it could affect a large number of staff who were working legally. However, these additional powers send the right message and could be useful in disrupting businesses that rely on exploiting illegal workers. Alongside making it easier to bring prosecutions against those who knowingly employ an illegal worker, this puts the responsibility on unscrupulous business owners and employers—exactly where it should be.
I welcome the proposal for a director of labour market enforcement. In 2013 I asked the then Immigration Minister, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, to set out how many illegal working enforcement visits there had been on a yearly basis across the north-west of England. The answer showed that these visits fluctuate year by year, with hundreds more in one year than in the next. This feast-to-famine approach cannot be the best available, and reports of illegal working in the area I represent are, if anything, increasing steadily. It is therefore reassuring to know that there will be a central point for co-ordination of information and resources if we have the director. Illegal working does not come and go from year to year, so the efforts to keep on top of the problem should not do so either if we are to prevent illegal working and, most importantly, protect migrant workers from exploitation.
I am aware of the criticism that this role will not go as far as a fair employment commission would go, which has been proposed elsewhere. I hope the Minister can address how far the director’s remit should extend and whether it ought also to include local authorities with statutory responsibilities to enforce health and safety legislation and the Health and Safety Executive—a point that has been made by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and a number of other groups.
The Bill builds on the reforms we have made to the Immigration Act 2014 to tackle illegal immigration from the bottom up. Both across the globe and here in the UK, we see that migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to labour market exploitation, and many find themselves living and working in dangerous and degrading conditions.
Lady Hermon
The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he will support the Bill. I have listened carefully to his speech and I am pleased that prosecutions are being brought in the circumstances that he outlined. However, some of us are very disturbed that the increased powers to be given to immigration officers under the Bill include the power to strip search for nationality documents. How can he and those who share the Government Benches with him defend that?
Andrew Stephenson
I think that the measures outlined in the Bill represent an important step forward. A series of measures have been introduced under this Government, as the Home Secretary set out today. The Bill takes us a step further in the right direction. The people who pay the highest cost and who are the most vulnerable and exploited are the migrants themselves—it is the gangmasters and criminals who are making the money and profiteering —so we must have them at the centre of everything we do. I feel—the hon. Lady might disagree—that the Government’s approach is right. The Bill helps to fulfil the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to introduce tougher labour market regulations to tackle illegal working and exploitation.
I conclude by briefly paying tribute to Lancashire police for the excellent work they are doing to protect people from the sort of criminal activity I have been talking about. The team is gearing up for its human trafficking week of action later this month, and it is also holding an anti-slavery day over the weekend. Lancashire police are working with immigration agencies to educate businesses that might be linked to illegal employment and to enforce the current rules. I strongly welcome the work of our dedicated police officers and immigration officials. I welcome just as strongly the tough measures contained in the Bill, which are necessary to ensure that vulnerable people in Pendle are protected from exploitation and that those who make use of illegal workers feel the full force of the law.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
I think that it is universally accepted that the British people want properly controlled immigration. Their objection is to unfair and uncontrolled immigration. This Bill has been dressed up as a powerful response to that demand for effective immigration control, but it is in fact the opposite; it is a sign that the Home Office has given up on doing its job.
Instead of fixing that which is broken—the ports of entry that passengers go through without seeing an immigration officer; the practice, when police officers intercept people who have been smuggled in lorries, of sending them on their way and asking them kindly to present themselves at the Home Office in Croydon; and even appeals where, having refused an application, the Home Office fails to send a representative to defend the decision—the Home Office has instead allowed terrible delays in listing appeals, resulting in people who have no valid claim to remain here staying longer and putting down roots so that they become more difficult to remove.
The Home Office has rejected calls to extend the role and remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority so that practical action can be taken to prevent labour exploitation in sectors where we know it exists, such as the hotel trade and construction. Instead, it is delegating the problem to us—to ordinary people and not just employers, who rightly should check the immigration status of people who apply to work for them, in order to protect themselves and their customers. Those employers regularly complain to me that the information on the advice line is at best confusing, and at worst wrong.
We are told that there will be an advice line for some of the new groups who will have to check someone’s immigration status. Banks already have some experience, but landlords will now be expected to refer to an advice line in order to spy on the immigration status of their tenants. In effect, the Bill is setting us all up as snoopers on other people’s immigration status. We know that that is ineffective. Of 75,000 allegations to the Home Office in 2013, there were 4,000 arrests and only 1,000 removals. Even privatised Capita, when given 120,000 records of overstayers, managed to persuade only 1,000 to leave.
I have been advising people about immigration status for over 35 years, but I still need to check with up-to-date experts about what some of my constituents’ entitlements are. The Home Office is not providing the tools that would allow citizens to be sure of the status of someone who might seek services from them. The result is unsurprising, and it is confirmed by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants report on west midlands landlords: people will just stop taking the risk.
Britain, having been a tolerant and welcoming society in which iconic British successes have often been created by refugees and migrants—businesses such as Marks & Spencer and inventions such as the Mini, which was designed here by an Italian—will become a place where people with foreign names and accents face a kind of pass law system in which, in order to play a full part in society, they have to keep proving their status and the fact that they have rights. The MPs who opposed the national ID card system did so on the basis that it was an infringement of civil liberties. The consequence of failing to introduce such a system is that all of us will have to make these checks, and minorities will bear the brunt of infringements of their civil liberties.
Simon Hoare
I do not know when the hon. Lady last rented a property or opened a bank account, but when doing so, as British citizens, we are all required to provide information, be it a passport, a utility bill, proof of address or a driving licence, and so on. Surely it is just common sense that when landlords are letting a property these safeguards and checks should be made. They are made on the rest of us, as things stand now.
Fiona Mactaggart
The point is that if someone has a full British passport, it is very easy to say that they are entitled. The Residential Landlords Association predicts, rightly in my view, that the consequence of this measure will be that people who do not have a British passport, even those who are British—we should remember that some 12 million people in Britain do not carry a passport—will find themselves discriminated against because the landlord thinks that the situation is difficult.
We need to make sure that the only landlords prosecuted are those to whom Ministers have referred, who are sometimes complicit in illegal migration and the exploitation of vulnerable migrant workers. Can the Minister point to a provision saying that only people like the pimps who are exploiting trafficked workers in brothels will be prosecuted but innocent landlords who make a mistake and do not understand the documents will not? I do not believe that this Bill is going to help these women. The clause 8 offence of illegal working will apply to them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) clearly explained. Will the Minister give specific details about what action he will take to make sure that victims who are coerced by others to work are not criminalised by the offence? Will they have a statutory defence under the Bill? We know that the results of the assessment of landlords experiment will not be available until after this debate, but has he conducted an assessment of the impact of these measures on victims of modern slavery?
This Bill is horribly un-British. It gives immigration officers extreme powers without submitting them to abiding by protections like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—protections that police officers have to abide by. It forces people to appeal from overseas, and by doing so ignores the rights of children who will be separated from their parents. The Children’s Commissioner has said that the current arrangements already fail to meet our obligations on children’s rights.
Overseas appeals will not deal with cases such as the one in my constituency of a husband whose documents showed that he lived in Slough while his wife lived in Bradford, so the Home Office said, “This is a marriage of convenience.” In fact, Slough was the only place he could get work, so he was coming down there to work from Monday to Friday and then returning to his family at the weekend. Without an oral hearing, he would not have been able to win his case. He did win it, and the immigration judge praised him for working so hard to support his family. This Bill is going to lead to un-British injustice, and we should reject it.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in full support of what the Government are doing to tackle the problem of illegal immigration, and to put on record my support for every single word of the speech that the Home Secretary made at the recent Conservative party conference. The Government are absolutely right to be doing this. Nobody has any problem with legal migration into Britain; no Conservative Member has suggested that there is a problem with it. Speaking for myself, I am married to somebody who migrated into this country from eastern Europe. My children are bilingual and have dual nationality. My sister-in-law is Chinese. Davies family Christmas get-togethers can be like the United Nations.
This is not about racism or xenophobia at all. Conservative Members are concerned that migration needs to be managed in a careful fashion, and to be legal and controlled. Illegal mass migration is causing all sorts of problems, not just for the UK, but for many of those who have been illegally brought into this country.
Pressure is being put on housing and it is important that we take action against rogue landlords. I remember going out with the police in a part of London—I think it was Ealing, but it may have been elsewhere—and they openly said, “Look at all these sheds that have been converted into accommodation. It’s all for people who have come over here illegally.” It is such a widespread problem that very little is being done about it.
Fiona Mactaggart
I represent a constituency in which many such sheds exist, and the housing pressures in Slough are such that most of the residents of those sheds are now perfectly legal.
David T. C. Davies
We do not know that, do we? But we will no doubt be able to find out because we are giving people the powers to check.
There is pressure on schools when pupils cannot speak English. There is a cost for translators and the issue also causes problems for the health service. It undermines wages and creates wider public concerns.
Liz Saville Roberts
I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that his children are bilingual. English-language courses are, of course, free. Given that the Welsh language has equal status under the Welsh Language Act 1993, does he agree that the Government should ensure that Welsh-language courses should also be free?
David T. C. Davies
Diolch am hynny—thanks for that—but the hon. Lady is tempting me down another path. I would love to come back to this matter on another occasion, because a lot of money is wasted on translating documents that nobody would ever read into Welsh and not quite enough money is spent on supporting people who want to learn the Welsh language, but that is more a matter for the Welsh Assembly than for us.
I think there is wider public concern about illegal immigration. That concern is too often dismissed as narrow-minded racism when that is not the case. It is reasonable for people who live in established communities to get nervous when they suddenly find that English—or, indeed, in some parts of north Wales, Welsh—is no longer the language they hear on the streets from day to day. In some of the larger cities, people become nervous when they see cultural changes that they cannot go along with, such as women wearing burkas and trailing 6 feet behind their husbands, female genital mutilation and forced marriage. It is no good dismissing those concerns as racism—they are not. I think we are a very tolerant bunch of people in Britain, but all of us, no matter our origins, have a right to assume that anyone who chooses to come to this country really ought not only to respect the language of their chosen country and to learn it as best as they possibly can, but to fit in with that country’s culture and values rather than expect to be able to impose their own cultural values.
I recently visited the “jungle” in Calais, to find out for myself what was going on and to talk to some of the people trying to make the illegal crossing. I have nothing against any of them personally—what they are doing is perfectly understandable—but the Government recognise that they have a responsibility to tackle the problem.
A lot of what I saw is unlikely to be shown on the next episode of “Songs of Praise” when it goes there. Only a small minority of people in the “jungle” actually came from Syria. The vast majority, as far as I could tell, came from elsewhere, including Iraq, Pakistan and even Iran, which is one of the more stable countries in the middle east. I have no doubt that some of them were fleeing instability and war, but Britain will never, ever be able to cope with the number of people who live in countries that have a measure of instability. They include most of sub-Saharan Africa, virtually all of the middle east and a large chunk of Asia to boot. We simply will not be able to cope with the vast number of people who could legitimately claim that they come from a country where there is a certain amount of instability.
Another issue I had was that the vast majority of these people were young men. If they were all genuine refugees fleeing war, where were their wives and children? Why had they left them behind to face whatever it was they claimed to be facing? Others there were perfectly honest. One gentleman from Pakistan told me openly, “I am going to Britain because it is easier to work there and get cash in hand,” and he made a gesture to show what he meant. That is why the Government are right to tackle the problem.
I was concerned that people were living in all sorts of different areas in the “jungle” in Calais: the Iraqis were in one area, the Pakistanis in another and other people somewhere else. I was told by residents of the camp that the reason for that was that it is a very dangerous place after dark and that there is a lot of tension that sometimes results in violence. With the best will in the world, if we try to do what Germany is doing and allow hundreds of thousands of people to come into this country from widely different cultures—including, perhaps, cultures that have been at war with each other—that will cause a major law and order problem. The Germans have already found that there have been outbreaks of violence between Turkish and Kurdish people. We therefore need to be honest about the problems that we face.
We must remember that many of the migrants are making the dangerous journey because they are under the impression that, once they make it into Europe, they will be allowed to stay and nobody can chuck them out. As well as causing problems for other people, they are risking their own lives. Some figures suggest that at least 1% of them die on that illegal journey. They often pay money over to human traffickers. One man told me on film—I have put it on YouTube—that he paid €18,000 to human traffickers to get him as far as Calais. Criminal gangs are making vast sums out of people’s misery and exploitation.
The Government are absolutely right to do something about the problem. I am glad that some of the issues are recognised by Labour Members, although I am sorry that they are not willing to show their support for tougher migration controls in the Lobby tonight. I reassure the Government that not only will the vast majority of, if not all, Conservatives support them, but the vast majority of people in the wider world who vote for all sorts of different parties will also support what they are trying to do.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I will be brief, as time does not permit otherwise, but I want to make three points.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made the first point very eloquently and clearly. Although I welcome the strengthening of sanctions for employers who employ illegal workers, often in abusive circumstances, I have an issue with the new offence of illegal working as applied to employees. The new offence will serve to criminalise workers for the smallest wrongdoings, while making it harder for bosses who exploit their workforce to be caught and brought to justice. Indeed, as the TUC has pointed out, undocumented migrants are unlikely to report bosses who have exploited them, particularly when they know that they could end up in court themselves.
Rather than helping workers, the Bill means that bad employers could threaten to report undocumented workers if they complain about their terms and conditions. Instead, the Bill needs to provide undocumented migrants with employment rights, which would be separate from their immigration status, so that they can be treated equally. Nothing is gained by forcing already harassed individuals further underground.
Secondly, the measures will restrict irregular migrants’ access to residential tenancies. During the passage of the previous Immigration Bill in 2014, the Government made numerous assurances about the pilot scheme in the west midlands. They stated that it would be fully evaluated and that any lessons learned would be applied before decisions were made about a wider roll-out. However, it now seems that the Government have backtracked on that promise. Essentially, they have denied the House the opportunity of a full and transparent evaluation of the pilot.
Nevertheless, as hon. Members have mentioned, research by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants shows that the workings of the scheme are extremely disturbing. Its research shows that the policy resulted in many cases of racial discrimination, including against many BME tenants who have every right to rent in the UK. The evidence also shows that landlords are prepared to discriminate against those with a complex immigration status. Indeed, many landlords have found the whole thing fairly baffling and have undertaken the checks incorrectly. Because of the scheme, landlords in the west midlands have even charged ridiculous amounts for the checks or have raised rents as a precaution.
As if that was not bad enough, the policy seems to have failed in its stated objective of deterring irregular migrants from settling in the UK. Given that evidence, we have to ask why the Government are so determined to railroad the Bill through. I believe that until any study shows otherwise, we should be scrapping these measures, rather than rolling them out nationally. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that any measure increasing racial discrimination should be opposed.
The third issue, which perhaps causes me the gravest concern, is the failure of the Bill to address immigration detention. The unashamed use of limitless detention by the Home Office for, as Liberty has put it, “administrative convenience” is one of the greatest stains on this country’s human rights record. Many victims of torture or sexual violence are placed in captivity for undetermined lengths of time. It is a bureaucratic nightmare from which there are inadequate avenues of escape.
The Bill was an opportunity to deal with that matter, but, as in so many areas, it fails to address the most fundamental issues. I sincerely hope that the Government will address the issues that I have raised. I urge them to table amendments to do so in Committee.
Finally, I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement that he will make Islamophobia a specific crime that will be reported alongside similar crimes relating to religion. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will join me in welcoming that important step forward.
Imran Hussain
I will in a moment.
We must all do as much as possible to eradicate discrimination in all its forms. Unfortunately, the Bill allows some forms of discrimination through the back door, especially against BME communities. That must be blocked and stopped.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
The subject of immigration has created much thought and emotion in my constituency over a long period, whether it relates to EU or non-EU immigration, illegal immigration or refugees and asylum seekers. Often when the subject is discussed, those categories are not separated.
Over recent months, we have seen heart-rending images of people migrating across the Mediterranean and across Europe, risking their lives to flee conflict and conditions that in no way resemble those that we are privileged to have in the UK. The Bill focuses predominantly on illegal immigration and should not be confused with the action that is being taken to deal with the refugee situation across Europe.
There has been a significant increase in net migration to the UK. It is true that immigration has made a positive contribution to our country. We all recognise the benefits that it can bring. However, it is right that the Bill seeks to crack down on illegal immigration and to deter people who do not have a legal right to live in this country from staying in the UK or making their way here without going through the correct procedures to obtain entry.
My hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) have spoken about the Calais camps. Last week, my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) and for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) and I visited the illegal camp in Calais with the Bishop of Dover. I wanted to see the conditions for myself and to see what was actually happening in Calais. I also wanted to speak to some of the thousands of young men, who were predominantly from Afghanistan or Eritrea, to find out how long they had been there, how they had got there, why they had left their home countries and why they wanted to come to the UK. While speaking to the inhabitants of the camp, it became incredibly clear that they were making their way to the UK because they had a perception that things would be better for them. Although some were registering with the authorities in France, many were not. Some articulated a belief that there were many more opportunities in the UK, and that it would be easy to obtain illegal work here. The camp is currently estimated to be housing between 5,000 and 6,000 people, and it is suggested that around 100 people a day arrive from across France.
The Bill builds on attempts to tackle illegal working by migrants, as well as individuals who seek to exploit and profit from vulnerable migrant workers. It will introduce tougher enforcement, and make it easier to prosecute employers who ignore the law. It will provide a deterrent to those who wish to stay here when they have no legal right to remain, and it will also deter those who wish to make the journey to the UK with the intention of working here illegally.
In my constituency this summer unbelievable images of a transaction of people were witnessed and filmed by one of my constituents. The event clearly appeared to be part of organised criminal activity, and we witnessed at first hand the exploitation of some of these vulnerable people. I welcome the measures in the Bill. It is right that individuals who have followed the correct procedures to apply for asylum in the UK are supported, but it is also right that asylum seekers who have been refused and have exhausted all rights of appeal should not then be supported by the British taxpayer.
Over recent months the county of Kent has seen a significant increase in the number of unaccompanied minors who have presented themselves. That has put immense pressure on the resources and services of local authorities. I know that local authorities will be nervous about the potential impact of these measures, and of increased pressures that they may place on the county’s resources and those of the south-east as a whole.
I wish to support the Bill because I believe that it goes some way towards tackling the attractiveness of the UK as a place to come to work and live in illegally. It also spells out clearly that individuals who intend to exploit or profit from migrants will be dealt with by these provisions.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I hope the House will indulge me if I display a small measure of weariness in my remarks on this Bill. Since I was first elected in 2001, this is the seventh Immigration Bill to come before the House, or the eighth if we include the UK Borders Act 2007. When the answer has not been found in legislation or regulation, successive Governments have sought to tackle the challenges of immigration through reorganisation.
When I was first elected, entry at British ports and airports was regulated through Customs and Excise. In my constituency three customs officers were stationed in Shetland, but I was told at the time that we did not need officers on the ground because there was nothing for them to do. I now watch with wry amusement as the UK Border Force regularly flies its officers into my constituency to deal with the welcome increase in cruise traffic over the summer months—work that could have been done by our local customs officers if we still had them.
In the early days matters of nationality and immigration were dealt with by the Home Office through the then Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Customs and Excise was split to create the UK Border Agency, but that ran into some difficulty—I will not revisit that grief here—and it was eventually split into the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force. We now have the further split of the UK Visas and Immigration which is dealing with this issue.
We have had seven, possibly eight Bills, and 45 changes to the immigration rules during the current Home Secretary’s time in office. As a constituency Member, I look at the cases that present themselves in my constituency surgeries. I am afraid I see a situation where the quality of service provided, to us as taxpayers and to those who want to come here legitimately, gets worse and worse. The quality of initial decision-making by entry clearance officers is rivalled possibly only by work capability assessments in terms of their vulnerability to attack on appeal. The length of time it takes for decisions to be made and the number of cases that have to go to tribunals to receive proper consideration seems only to increase. This brought us to the point where, two years ago, it was the Home Secretary herself who identified
“a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcements of its own policies”—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1501.]
as being the cause of the poor performance of the UK Borders Agency.
Immigration is a complex and delicate area of public policy. It behoves us all to approach it with a measure of humility and to recognise that nobody has a monopoly on wisdom. I strongly suspect that if the answer to the challenge of immigration lay in legislation and regulation, we would have met that challenge years ago. I am certain that it will not be met by leading that debate—those of us in the House must lead that debate—through the promotion of anecdote and prejudice over evidence. In that regard, I deeply regretted both the tone and the content of the Home Secretary’s recent speech to the Conservative party conference.
Simply put, the Immigration Bill is not fit for purpose. The refugee crisis is showing no sign of slowing down and not one of the Bill’s 56 clauses looks at finding a solution or easing the pressure on Europe’s borders. For that reason, my right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose it. More than that, the Bill’s starting point is, as the Home Secretary said in her pitch for the leadership at the Tory party conference, that the benefits of immigration are close to zero. That is wrong. Yes, we need to control immigration and to ensure that our public services can cope with growth, but we must never lose sight of the fact that without immigration our NHS would grind to a halt, our economy would falter and we would be far poorer culturally. The Home Secretary has decided it is better to crack down on appeals rather than to get the decision right the first time, to turn landlords into immigration officers rather than to accelerate the introduction of exit checks, and to make failed asylum seekers destitute rather than to support them to get back home.
Time does not permit me to run over the full range of concerns I have about giving the Bill a Second Reading, but I do just want to touch very briefly on one: the continued failure, as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) highlighted, to deal with immigration detention. There is no other area where we, as a state, deprive members of the public of their liberty without proper judicial supervision and without limit of time. It is outrageous that no action has been taken on that. That is one of the few reasons why it would be timely to have a Bill of this sort. We are awaiting the outcome of the Shaw review. I would like to hear from the Minister in his reply whether that review will be able to inform the House’s consideration of the Bill as it progresses.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I was very keen to speak in support of the Bill, because I feel it recognises the deep concern the public have over immigration and, most importantly, it sends the message both home and abroad that illegal migrants are not welcome in the UK. If they do come, they will have great difficulty in finding somewhere to live and great difficulty in finding somewhere to work.
Despite those concerns, most people see the benefits of good migration. We need good migration, not mass migration. Good migration is good for the economy, our society and local communities. We need skilled workers and diversity enriches us, but not all immigration is good immigration. It can put a strain on schools, hospitals, dental and doctors’ surgeries and housing, and it can depress wages, particularly for those struggling on lower incomes. It can, of course, also see those migrants exploited. Net immigration, at 330,000, is too high and puts too much pressure on those services.
Over the next 20 years, the UK’s population is due to grow from 65 million to 75 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) pointed out that the situation in other EU countries, such as Germany, is entirely different. The populations of those countries are either falling or stable. The UK is a victim of its own success. I welcome the Government’s effort to lower immigration from outside the EU, but those gains have been wiped out by migration from within the EU. I also welcome the Bill because it clamps down on illegal working and illegal residency.
Good migration is good for our economy. We must not deter good people, who are much needed for our high-tech industries, hospitals and hospitality industries, or the students who pay their way and come to our world-leading universities. I welcome, however, the Government action to close 900 bogus colleges since 2010. Business is worried about the changes to students’ access to the UK, but it will adapt given time.
The right to rent is a concern, and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—estate agency, the ideal preparation for a career in politics. Agents and landlords might be hit by disproportionate sanctions, including up to five years in jail. These are complex procedures. The EU has approved up to 400 different documents as demonstrating a right to residency. We have to support and simplify procedures, or it will effectively lead to discrimination.
As I said, immigration is good for society. We get a fusion of races and cultures living, learning and working together, but I have seen at first hand the effects of unchecked immigration in some of our towns and cities across east Lancashire and west Yorkshire, where communities are divided and people live, learn and work in separate areas. There has been too much immigration and a lack of thought and planning. We must clamp down on illegal immigration, and I welcome the initiative on public sector workers being able to speak fluent English.
In conclusion, we must ensure that our migration is good migration and send out the message that we will not tolerate illegal migration. Employers, agents, our banks and landlords all have their part to play, but the Government must support their efforts with good advice and appropriate resources. The Bill will give us more control and get us back to a sensible and sustainable immigration policy. I will absolutely be supporting it this evening.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I declare an interest: like many other hon. Members, my mother is an immigrant, and one who, like many other immigrants in the UK, has given a lifetime’s service in the NHS.
It is as a lawyer I wish to speak in this debate, however, because I am concerned about the Bill’s attack on civil liberties, the removal of in-country appeals in human rights cases, the Bill’s lack of respect for the rule of law and due process and the shift from judicial to Executive control of the immigration bail system. The independent all-party law reform and human rights organisation Justice, of which I am a member, has prepared a detailed analysis of aspects of the Bill pertaining to the rule of law. I recommend that Members have a look at its full analysis of these matters. Justice has grave concerns about the legal aspects of the Bill, as does the SNP.
I wish to focus on three specific areas: the extension of the enforcement powers of immigration officers; the new immigration bail system; and the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” rules to all human rights appeals. As has already been said, the powers of immigration officers are significantly extended by the Bill. This concerns me for a number of reasons. Immigration officers and detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers are not part of the regular police force, and they are not trained to the same degree or supervised in the same way. The power granted to immigration officers to enter and search premises without a search warrant solely because they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person in a premises is in possession of a driving licence and is not lawfully resident in the UK is a significant and arguably disproportionate extension of their current powers. Given concerns about the ability of the Home Office accurately to identify who is and is not lawfully resident in the UK, there are obvious risks for both British citizens and legal migrants, as well as illegal migrants, that their rights to respect for their private and family life and indeed their home under article 8 of European convention on human rights will be breached.
Another matter that concerns me is the broadly defined category of documents that immigration officers and other officers are empowered to search. While the power of immigration officers to search and seize these documents has the safeguard that they must not seize documents that they have reason to believe are legally privileged, there is no such safeguard in connection with searches by detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers when they are looking for relevant nationality documents subject to seizure. That is a grave concern. I believe that before these powers are conferred en masse, the Government need to examine how existing powers are being used and should make the case before Parliament for each additional power that is being sought.
On the bail system, individuals previously granted temporary admission, release or release under restrictions will all be subject to immigration bail. The Secretary of State will be empowered to vary conditions. The Bill will bring many more people within the immigration bail regime, while simultaneously shifting control of bail and restrictions on liberty from the judiciary to the Executive. That will include a far-reaching power for the Home Secretary to place electronic monitoring and residence conditions on bail in all cases. A large number of asylum seekers previously granted temporary admission will now be seen exclusively through a prism of detention and bail, casting aspersions of illegitimacy and even criminality. Those affected are real people. I have constituents in Edinburgh South West who are asylum seekers. They are not criminals who should be subject to bail: they are refugees.
That brings me to the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” rule to all human rights appeals, not just those liable to deportation. It is important to be clear that this rule is being extended not just to illegal immigrants, but to all immigrants, including those who have been lawfully resident up until the Home Office rightly or wrongly refuses their applications. The appeals fact sheet issued by the Home Office makes it absolutely clear that this power will be used to separate families, including parents, from children. That cannot be right. Moreover, if people are “sent back to where they came from”—an emotive phrase—before they can raise their appeal, there will be very real practical and emotional difficulties for them in pursuing that appeal. Again, I urge hon. Members to look at Justice’s detailed analysis of the practical and emotional difficulties that immigrants sent back to where they came from will face in progressing their appeal.
I am conscious of the lack of time I have left. I was anxious to highlight the rule of law aspects of the Bill. For the reasons I have suggested and for other reasons to be advanced by my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party as the debate progresses, I urge Members to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
I am pleased to speak about this important Bill, and I look forward to taking a full and active part in scrutinising it as it continues its passage through Parliament. It is fair to say that the Bill has created much debate in all corners of British public life. From non-governmental organisations to the media, we have seen some excellent and incisive analysis of it, albeit some rather less so.
I have received—as, I am sure, have all Members—much correspondence from my constituents about the issue of immigration, and I shall draw on some of it later. I am very proud of the people whom I represent in Gower, given their good judgment and their scrutiny of the Bill, and I am pleased that constituents are playing such an active role in the legislative function of Parliament. It must be borne in mind that the British people voted for the Conservative manifesto and want to see it implemented.
I want to touch on a number of aspects of the Bill. Britain is, of course, an attractive place for migrants to live in. We have a diverse society, and that is nowhere more evident than here in London. However, while it is easy to list the virtues of living in Britain, it has been forgotten in some quarters during today’s debate that many migrant workers come to this country to face horrendous exploitation. They find themselves working and living in degrading conditions that are not fit for any human, and regrettably, as we have seen recently, Wales, which includes my constituency, is not exempt from that.
The exploitation of migrants is becoming an increasingly organised criminal activity, which I witnessed and worked to combat when I was a National Crime Squad police officer, and I commend the Government for their actions to curb that activity. I fully support the measures in part 1 to establish a director of labour market enforcement, who would be required to produce a labour market enforcement strategy and report annually to the Home Secretary and the Business Secretary.
Our manifesto committed us to introducing tougher market regulation, and we must support that. Not one single human life should be put through the ordeal and the conditions that we see and hear of all too often. We, as a Parliament, must make clear that that is simply not acceptable and will not be allowed to go unchallenged. I am pleased that the criminal sanction in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is to be amended to make it easier to bring prosecutions against individuals who knowingly employ illegal workers when the individual has been indirectly involved in the offence. We must put those protections in place and I applaud the Government for introducing them.
Part 2, “Access to services”, creates four new offences to target rogue landlords and agents who deliberately and repeatedly fail to comply with the right to rent scheme, or fail to evict individuals who they know, or have reasonable cause to believe, are disqualified from renting as a result of their immigration status. That is an important point and it leads us to a wider point relating to the issue of immigration in our society. There is no doubt that that topic has caused schisms in parts of British society, and the debate has raged for years between those who, in some cases, hold widely differing views. What has become clear, however, is that the British people want the Government to act to reduce net migration.
As a Conservative, I should add that it cannot be just the Government who take action. It is also up to individuals, whether landlords or businesses, to act to curb illegal immigration. Although it is, of course, the Government’s place to set the legislative framework, we must also put some onus on rogue landlords and agents who abuse the system. This is not about penalising legitimate businesses or landlords; quite the opposite. It is about helping legitimate landlords if they need help, and about stopping those who abuse the system for their own ends.
I commend the Government’s decision to give police and immigration officers new powers to search for and seize UK driving licences which are in the possession of a person who is not lawfully resident in the UK. The Bill also introduces a new criminal offence of driving in the UK while an illegal immigrant, while courts will have the power to order the forfeiture of the vehicle. However, I find myself agreeing with a point made earlier by the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) about immigration officers respecting the values of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
For 13 years, the Labour Government allowed unchecked and unchallenged immigration. They spoke of acting, but did not give the police or immigration officers the powers to do their job. It was all well and good for that Labour Government to pay lip service to solving the problems with grand but empty gestures and the famous soundbites of new Labour, but there was no action to back up the rhetoric. I am pleased that this Government have taken action and have provided the tools that services need to do the job that is being asked of them.
I want to raise an issue that has concerned some of my constituents. They fear that children will suffer from the withdrawal of financial support from their parents, which could leave them homeless and suffering severe hardship. I am sure that the Minister, who has worked through the Bill extremely diligently, will have tried to ensure that any adverse effect on children will be mitigated. Therefore, I ask him to provide some assurances that this is the case, as a child’s future can be critically affected in their early years and morally we must do everything we can to protect them and give them every chance to lead a full and happy life.
I thank the Minister and his team for their hard work on the Bill. I will be supporting the Government as they take these vital steps on immigration reform.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
I will not take my full six minutes. I merely want to touch on two separate components of this Bill: the proposed employment levy on immigrant workers, and the availability of bank accounts and driving licences for failed immigration applicants.
I fear this Bill, and these particular sections, will only fuel the misconceptions that surround immigration. They risk tarring every immigrant with the same ill-informed brush. Worse still, they risk disfranchising many UK citizens, purely on the basis that they may have a foreign- sounding name, a bank account and, heaven forbid, a driving licence and a car. This, of course, may not be the intention of the Bill—I hope it is not—but it is the unintended consequences which concern me, and we in this place should be alive to them.
This Bill creates powers to impose an immigration skills charge on employers for skilled workers they sponsor from outside the EU. I would prefer to call it the “immigrant tax” to be paid by small and medium-sized enterprises, a potentially devastating combination. This provision will deter employers from employing people from outside the EU. We will see genuinely skilled migrants, many of whom might even have a world-class education from one of our universities in the UK or Scotland, slip through our fingers. The message it sends out is clear: immigrants are considered different, more expensive—unwanted. It flies in the face of substantial empirical and personal evidence which outlines the greatly positive fiscal and social contribution immigrants have made to the UK—it is not, as the Home Secretary said at the weekend, close to zero.
I fear we would not have an NHS had this policy been implemented a generation ago. What will the next generation look like? This is unacceptable at a time when the country as a whole should be tasked with innovating and expanding its ambitions. We can only do this if we welcome thinkers and innovators from outside our shores, as well as supporting those inside them.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Earlier this year, I, along with a Conservative Member who is in the Chamber, visited Pakistan and we heard a number of people complain about the visa arrangements and how that was holding back opportunities for students from Pakistan to study in Scotland and across the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the policy is very dangerous?
Richard Arkless
I think it is incredibly dangerous and one of the things that has struck me since I became an MP, with the many constituents who come to my surgeries, is the mess the immigration system is in. Things take too long, decisions are often bad, and in my experience it is vulnerable people who are trying to better their lives who are paying the consequences for this, which I find completely unacceptable.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On the point about the delegation to Pakistan, of course people in Pakistan and here in the UK want a fairer system of immigration. We have to ensure the rules are fair so that genuine students can come and study, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we saw previously, with 600 bogus colleges, and people coming here when they should not have and when they did not want to be students, was wrong? The system we are putting in place will address that, so that genuine students from Pakistan can come here and study.
Richard Arkless
Forgive me for being cynical, but the number given earlier in the debate was 900 and now it is 600. That underlines the fact that there is misinformation; there is no evidence base for this Bill. There is no evidence base for the assertion of 900 or 600. What is the right figure? We need to know the facts.
The opportunities for prejudice and discrimination will be rife as a result of this Bill. It places a duty on banks and building societies to carry out regular checks on the immigration status of individuals and to notify the Home Office when a person becomes disqualified from holding a current account. I have a degree of sympathy with that proposal, on the face of it. A failed immigration applicant should not have access to banking or other services, but I worry about the unintended consequences, not least for our own citizens from other cultures or for perfectly legitimate immigrants. How many failed immigration applicants actually have a stash of cash that would need to be frozen? Would freezing such assets serve any purpose, save that of scoring obvious political points? These provisions could result in serious intrusion into the lives of all our citizens if they were applied in the wrong circumstances.
The Bill also contains the power to seize and detain vehicles driven by illegal immigrants. It provides for the prosecution and imprisonment and/or fining of those who drive if they are illegal immigrants, even if they are in possession of a valid driving licence from another state. Again, on the face of it, that might appear sensible, but I have to ask: do we really have a problem with lots of failed immigration applicants clogging up our streets and creating traffic jams with their cars, or is this just another point-scoring exercise?
How these provisions are to be regulated and enforced should be a matter for rigorous debate in this place. It is clear that the Bill is fixated on reducing the net migration figures, and in so doing—as has been admitted by Conservative Members—reducing the attractiveness of the UK as a place where skilled migration is welcomed. The Home Secretary’s dangerously aggressive speech to her party’s conference was a class act in striking more fear where it does not belong. The Bill will extend that fear to those who might not even have done anything wrong. How many UK citizens with foreign-sounding names will have their lives disrupted and become disfranchised as a result of these measures before we realise that this has been a mistake? I believe that the nut that this sledgehammer of a Bill has been designed to smash will pale into insignificance beside the can of worms that the provisions will open.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
Some of the speeches from Opposition Members have done a bit of a disservice to our Home Secretary. I think that history will reveal her to have been an outstanding Home Secretary, given her capacity to cover the range of issues that the Home Office has to deal with, and the immediacy and potency of some of those issues. Those Members have also missed some of the breakthroughs that she has made in identifying issues of abuse, particularly in relation to people trafficking, and of discrimination in relation to stop and search that other Home Secretaries have not addressed. We must put that on the record to balance the argument.
As many people have said, it is undoubtedly true that immigration is the No. 1 issue. It is equally true to say that the vast majority of people who believe that to be the case are not anti-immigrant. However, they have specific things that they want to see in our immigration policies. They want to know that the system is under control. They want to know that the numbers of people coming to this country are reasonable and that our borders are secure. They want to know that the people who come here make not just an average contribution— a break-even contribution—but an above-average contribution to our country. As we have heard from people who are themselves the daughters of migrants, they also want to know that the people who come here will do their best to integrate into the country that they now call home. And of course, they want those people who they believe have no right to be here to leave or to be removed.
As I look through the Bill, I miss the provisions relating to many of those early points. The focus of much of it is on that last point. It says, “Please leave.” It asks, “What can we do to encourage you to leave?” I ask the Minister to listen to what hon. Members have said about the importance of evidence in pursuing the policies in the Bill. If we cannot supply evidence to support the measures we are taking, I fear that some of the negative consequences—some of which have perhaps been presented today with a bit of hyperbole—might indeed come to pass.
I am worried that the Bill focuses too strongly on symptoms rather than on the underlying causes of the concerns about immigration in this country. Our previous Bills have contained a number of measures that have precisely targeted the causes, dealing with bogus colleges, spousal visas and even the English test. I do not see much in this Bill to reinforce my belief that that is a continuing thread of the efforts of our Government’s policies.
Above all, we want measures that deal with immigration but avoid things that are costly, ineffective or unjust. Will the Minister therefore support efforts that would limit detention in certain circumstances? He is aware of a case involving a pregnant women. He wrote to me at the end of last year saying that her healthcare had been adequately provided—he was relying on second-hand advice—but as we found out last week in the High Court that was not the case. Continuing with the detention of pregnant women leaves us open to these sorts of abuses in the future. This Bill is an opportunity to correct that, address the position of victims of torture and rape, and introduce a limit on the period of detention for people who are subject to immigration regulations.
As has been said, this is not just about the extension of powers, but about how well we are using the powers we already have. I urge the Minister to provide more information in Committee about how the current powers are being used and why they are not sufficient. Many of us do not wish to see landlords and business people used as the front line of our Border Force; we are concerned about the potential for them to be criminalised. We are also concerned that as we put further pressure on people’s ability to stay in this country we will drive them to vagrancy and crime. I am sure that is not the intention, but I am also sure the Minister can see the potential for that in some of these measures. We have to get the balance right. The same applies on the issue I raised in my question to the Home Secretary about potential discrimination, which has been widely mentioned today.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
My hon. Friend has been taking the issues of immigration and detention seriously, as he has Yarl’s Wood on his doorstep in his constituency, and we have discussed them on many occasions. On detention, welfare and vulnerability, may I say to him that the Stephen Shaw report, which has recently been finalised, is addressing all those factors, and that we will be considering and acting on its recommendations carefully? I hope that gives him some reassurance about the attention and focus we are giving to the issues that I know he holds dear.
Richard Fuller
That is very reassuring, particularly as it comes from such a capable Minister.
I am used to being a bit out of kilter with the norm of political views about immigration here—it used to be just me and perhaps the former Member for Brent Central and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Of course, Sarah Teather has gone on to better things and the hon. Gentleman has gone on to be leader of the Labour party, so I am left here talking from a bit of a different angle from everyone else. The focus of much of this is illegal immigrants, and there is one word that nobody has used about illegal immigrants—compassion. I wish to discuss that.
Whether we like it or not, we are talking today about a lot of the toxic legacy of the Labour party’s lack of control of immigration. When I became a Member of Parliament in 2010, there were people who had been in this country for five, six or seven years when they had no right to be here, and there were children who had grown up in our schools when their parents had no right to be here. People should not blame the Conservative party for trying to clear up the mess that was left, but my party and this Government need to see not only effectiveness, but compassion. What is compassionate about sending a child who turns 18 back to a country that they have never really understood? Where is the compassion in taking money away from someone while they are waiting for their case to be resolved? Where is the compassion for someone who is holding on to stay in this country when they have no right to remain here? Where is the compassion in leaving them for years and just making their life harder and harder in the hope that somehow they just leave?
We can talk about effectiveness, but it is our values, too, as a country that we are talking about. I, for one, want to make sure that the Bills we pass in this country stand up for the best principles of our country as well.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I just have a new favourite Tory in the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). [Interruption.] I have never had one before. He is my first favourite Tory, which he may come to regret.
I may have been a Member of this House only since May, but even to an untrained eye it is clear that there is no better example of how not to legislate than the Bill in front of us today. It ignores the data gathered from the pilot project in the west midlands. It creates new enforcement powers when previous powers from the Immigration Act 1971 are seldom used, and it shifts the responsibilities of the understaffed immigration officers on to untrained and unaccountable private individuals.
The Bill represents a disproportionate infringement on the rights of individuals, with only a limited relationship between the legislation and its policy objectives. It is of little benefit to the common good; it is, in short, a shambles.
Restrictions on time allow me to focus on only one area, so I want to look at housing. The assessment of the pilot project in the west midlands by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants should act as a massive, shining red light on what is obviously a faulty policy. It identified clear problems with the so-called “right to rent” approach, none of which has yet been addressed by the Government. It also shines a light on the shameful failure of the Government to publish their own assessment of the pilot. They said yesterday that they would publish it before the Committee stage; they should have published it before today. As a member of that Committee, I want an assurance that it will be published in time for me to be able to assess it—in other words, in time for me to be able to do my job properly.
Despite the Government’s codes of practice, which they assured us would stop any discrimination, it is clear from the joint council’s report that there was an increase in discrimination in those areas in which the pilot was undertaken. Some 42% of landlords said that they were less likely to consider those without a British passport and 65% of landlords said that they were less likely to consider tenants who could not provide documents immediately.
The Government are creating a culture of fear. Although landlords do not wish to discriminate, the Residential Landlords Association said:
“Whilst the Residential Landlords Association condemns all acts of racism”—
as it should—
“the threat of sanctions will inevitably lead many landlords to err on the side of caution and not rent to anyone whose nationality cannot be easily proved.”
Clearly, it is fearful that this Bill will force landlords to act in a way that could be racist. What it is also clearly saying is that it does not want to do that, but the fear of being criminalised or even jailed may leave landlords with no other choice. The Government need to listen to their concerns, and if this legislation is not defeated—
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the requirement on landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants will surely encourage, even inadvertently, less favourable treatment, possibly discrimination, for anyone who does not look or sound British and also make it disproportionately harder for people to access appropriate housing?
Anne McLaughlin
I agree with every word from my hon. Friend. Indeed, it is one of the points that I really wanted to underline. If this Bill does go through, the Government must give landlords the resources they need to understand exactly what is required of them.
On the subject of racism, there is no doubt in my mind that intemperate language and legislation that is based on the presumption that all immigrants can be illegal will increase racism. I have heard many positive things today about multiculturalism, anti-racism and welcoming people who have come from other countries. I invite all those Members who have an interest in this subject to attend the Westminster Hall debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley), which celebrates Black History Month in October.
In practical terms, this Bill will make it much harder for those legally resident in the UK, originally from elsewhere, to rent a property here. It will leave some with no choice but to turn to unscrupulous landlords, which brings with it uncertainty and sometimes danger. There are also very real concerns regarding the privacy of the individual under this Bill. Those legally resident in the UK will have copies of their personal documentation kept in the hands of unaccountable private landlords for a period of years. As those include bank account details, this poorly drafted legislation also opens up endless possibilities of identity theft and illegal activity. If the Government wish to improve enforcement, why not start using the legislation on the statute book? Why not ensure that immigration officers are properly resourced so that they can do their job?
It is not just about professional landlords. A generation of property owners have bought their council house or their children’s university flat and have subsequently let it out. The Government want those property owners to do the work of trained immigration officials. What happened to the line oft quoted by Tories that an Englishman’s home is his castle? The Bill seeks to turn yon castle into an immigration office. The Bill does not reflect reasonable concerns on immigration but is rather a tokenistic attempt to appeal to a narrow segment of voters, reflected most clearly by the Government’s blatantly unnecessary language proposal in part 7.
Finally, I shall say one positive thing about the Bill. It has managed to unite social landlords, tenants, civil liberty campaigners and anti-racism campaigners with employers, private landlords and many more in opposition to its proposals—[Interruption.] Yes, it has. As we heard today, the Institute of Directors has also attacked the proposal, and the Government would do well to heed those concerns.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
This spring, on doorsteps across my constituency, people wanted to have a say on immigration and they wanted to be heard. I welcome this debate on such an important issue and rise to support the Government and the Home Secretary.
We are fortunate to live in a country that has benefited enormously from being a true melting-pot nation, and we speak in a truly global and outward-looking country and a truly diverse city. Students across the world come to our universities seeking the finest education, global investors continue to put their faith in the economic security of the nation and our proud culture of arts boasts the positive values of immigration and true diversity. Famous Britons who were not born Britons—George Handel, Henry James and T. S. Eliot to name but a few—have come here and succeeded, and without immigration we would not have our wonderful Marks & Spencer or the chance to do the “Mobot”. However, our nation’s proud history of immigration is reflected not just by these famous and successful names. Those who quietly toil day and night, providing us with the best healthcare, reflect our history of bringing people in to add value to this country.
Some 11% of all the staff in our NHS are foreign nationals, as are 26% of doctors. It is truly in the fabric of our nation that we are the beacon of opportunity across the world, but it is vital that we do not diminish that record by undertaking a programme of uncontrolled immigration that is neither fair nor sustainable. I do not want to see immigration without the rule of law, nor do I want to see people come to our shores only to be exploited by criminal gangs and forced into poorly paid work.
Migrant workers are often vulnerable and subject to labour market exploitation. I welcome the Bill’s institution of a new statutory director of labour market enforcement and am reassured by the Home Secretary’s opening remarks about the clear reporting structures. The new role ensures that intelligence and resource allocation across the regulators is properly co-ordinated, and the measure sits alongside a crackdown on those who would seek to employ illegal workers. We must be absolutely clear in this House that those who come to the UK illegally should not be working 20-hour days for no pay. It is not fair and it is not right.
I welcome the crackdown on driving licences. Too many tragedies on our roads have happened because of those who have not been checked and who are not regulated and who cause a menace on our roads. I believe that the fluent English requirement is vital for our workforce and to balance the skills gap.
Anne McLaughlin
Can the hon. Lady tell us how many tragedies have been caused on the roads by immigrants who come here and do not have a driving licence?
Mims Davies
Having worked in road safety, I can tell the hon. Lady that our roads policing units are very keen to make sure that the people on the roads have the right papers and, of course, are driving safely and legally.
It is easy for the Opposition to make wild accusations that the contents of the Bill are wholly negative. They have much to fear because net migration under Labour was more than twice the population of Birmingham and they clearly do not have the right answers. We on the Government Benches believe that immigration should be controlled and not exploited. On the doorstep many of my constituents wanted to see immigration brought down to a reasonable level and we have pledged to do that. The Bill will deliver that commitment.
Our melting-pot nation is a global force precisely because of our diversity. That permeates our history and defines what it is to be truly British. Let us then bring Britain back to being a nation that cherishes its legacy, controls its borders and keeps immigration as a positive force for all our futures.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I welcome the opportunity to engage in this debate. Throughout this afternoon I expected much more heat than light. In fairness, this has been a thorough debate and one in which much detail has been discussed. I am, however, disappointed that in many of the contributions from the Government Benches—the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) is an honourable exception—there has been an unwillingness to hear and respond to some of the concerns expressed in the debate, and an unwillingness to appreciate how consensus around immigration, not only in the Chamber but in the country, would be much preferable to the way in which some Members have engaged.
I am not on the same page as some of those who backed the amendment before us, but I expect to hear an indication from the Minister and the Home Office that in Committee there will be an earnest willingness to address many of the difficulties that arise in the Bill. It is right that Members across the Chamber welcome the suggestion, for example, of a director of labour market enforcement as one notable proposal that is worth supporting.
Politically, there is good reason for us as parliamentarians to make it less attractive for people to breach our immigration laws and come here illegally, but in doing so we must ensure that we do not become unattractive as a people or as a country. Some of the proposals outlined in the Bill would do just that. There has been particular focus on the right to rent, and there is a flaw in putting the onus on landlords particularly. What does the Minister intend “reasonable steps” to mean? How are landlords to satisfy the authorities that they have taken reasonable steps? More importantly, the provision applies not just to those named in the tenancy, but to others in the dwelling. It is a de facto provision that someone could harbour an illegal immigrant and face the penalties for it. That is not only unnecessary, but its implementation will be filled with difficulty.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) disagrees with me about how best we should proceed, but a number of her interventions this afternoon have been incisive. She raised an issue about those trafficked and exploited, in the context of the penalties that will apply to illegal immigrants who are employed. The answer that she got from the Home Secretary indicated that there is already such an offence in the Modern Slavery Act. That may well be the case, but for comfort a particular provision should be inserted in the Bill so that as a Parliament we can reaffirm that should somebody be rescued having been exploited or trafficked in this country, the provisions will not apply. The acceptance of an amendment of that significance in Committee would be enormously helpful.
I was shocked by part 7 of the Bill, which sets out the language requirements for public sector workers, and that is for two reasons. First, I was amazed that the ability to speak fluent English was not already a requirement in the public sector. Secondly, as the hon. Member for North Down pointed out in an intervention on the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), these provisions will not apply to Northern Ireland. I hope that I am communicating well enough in English this afternoon, because it is the language of Northern Ireland. I think that it is beholden on a one nation Government to recognise that such provisions should apply to Northern Ireland and, more importantly, not to engage in a political exclusion of Northern Ireland. I say that because there is a burgeoning language sector in Northern Ireland and there are politics around that. Two minority languages—Irish and Ulster-Scots—are protected in north-south bodies, but English is our dominant and preferred language, and Northern Ireland should not be excluded from the provisions.
Part 6—I have discussed this with the hon. Member for North Down—deals with maritime enforcement and sets out who will be able to access vessels. It mentions a police constable and an immigration officer, but it does not mention the Belfast harbour police—the private police force that operates in Belfast harbour—who ensure that we can adhere to the provisions in the maritime context. I therefore believe that an amendment to include that police force is worthy of support.
Our view is that the Bill is worthy of progression to at least Committee stage, but I think that the compassion that the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned is incredibly important, and it is something that I would like to see a lot more of.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). A number of right hon. and hon. Members have made the important point—I am sure that this is neither an intention of the Bill, nor an outcome—about the sensitivity of names with regard to lettings policies. The hon. Member for Belfast East comes from a community where being allocated a house, or indeed given a job, might often have depended upon having a Protestant-sounding or Catholic-sounding name. That is a sensitivity that we should be alert to, as I have little or no doubt Government Front Benchers are.
Let me turn briefly to the reasoned amendment that stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and others. I think that this is the first time I have seen a U-turn performed in an amendment. The first two thirds of the amendment are in full praise and support of the Bill, but then it rests its reason why we should not give it a Second Reading on an argument that a report that is to be published
“could cause widespread indirect discrimination”.
I do not think that that is a particularly well argued point from the Opposition. Given the amount of time that they have spent thinking about their position on immigration, I think that we might have expected a little better.
There are some very nasty people out there in our communities, and they have some very nasty views on this sensitive subject, which I have no doubt they will articulate with force and passion from their armchairs and in the saloon bars. But those nasty views are not put forward in this Bill. The Bill does not try to debate—because this is not the kernel of the argument—whether immigration is a good or bad thing, and it does not seek to further or foster racism or discrimination; it seeks purely to find better ways of defining the legal and the illegal. There is no qualitative judgment on an immigrant community the vast majority of whom play a full and active part in British life and are welcomed to our shores.
When my family and I moved house relatively recently, we were assisted by a very hard-working man from Poland. When he discovered what I did for a living, he quaked and said, “You don’t want me here, do you? I’d better go.” I said, “No, not at all.” It is a helpful irony, in many respects, that we are debating this issue on the anniversary of the birth of Lady Thatcher, who did so much to champion the rights of people from the former eastern bloc to come to the west. That free movement of people is something we should celebrate and support. We must understand, however, that it cannot and should not be unfettered. When I stood in the 2010 election—I fought Cardiff South and Penarth, and Cardiff South and Penarth fought back—established members of the immigrant, but very settled, community in Grangetown and Butetown said to me, “For God’s sake, Governments have to get a handle on this because we are starting to feel anxious. We are starting to feel that the Government have lost the plot.” That struck me as a very forceful endorsement of the main thrust of this policy and this Bill.
I am surprised by Labour’s tone with regard to the main thrust of the Bill in trying to clamp down on illegal working and exploitation. This is a matter of human welfare. We have all heard horrible stories of the terrible conditions of people forced to work in this country because they are here illegally and their existence can therefore be abused. It is absolutely right—I hope that it would unify the House—that we should focus on that and try to correct it and remove it from our national life.
I strongly welcome the proposed appeals process, but it will come as no surprise to the Minister that I, and no doubt many in this House, believe that the Home Office needs to up the speed with which it determines these appeals.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast East that it is a surprise that a language requirement has not existed in our public sector, and I very much welcome it.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman says that a requirement to speak English when working in the front line of public services has not existed until now. Has he ever used a public service and found that the person he is dealing with does not speak English, because I have not?
Simon Hoare
It depends at what level. Certainly, within the national health service, you will hear of many patients—constituents in North Dorset have told me this—who often have difficulty communicating because local idioms of language are just missed. To have that core skill—
Kirsten Oswald
Thank you very much for giving way. I would just like to be clear that you are not suggesting that only people from North Dorset should be employed in the health services in North Dorset.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, let me say that I have not yet reprimanded any particular Member for doing this, but now that it has happened several times, I must remind the House that when you use the word “you”, it is in the second person and you are referring to the Chair. It is in primary level 3 English lessons. “You” is the person to whom you are talking, and in here you are talking to the Chair. If you wish to refer to an hon. Member, it is “he”, “she”, or “it”.
Simon Hoare
Shall we split the difference, Madam Deputy Speaker, and go for “it”?
Given that my part of Dorset has the highest number of retired people in the country, if we pressed everybody of working age into the national health service we would be very understaffed. This issue goes across the country and, indeed, all parts of the United Kingdom.
Provisions relating to private letting and the banks are a key part of the Bill. Yes, some in the affected sectors—plural—may bleat about it, but the Government are placing an important obligation on their shoulders. This is clearly an issue, because previous Governments have tried to address it, but the Government cannot deal with it by themselves; other agencies and people involved in British commercial and public life need to help deal with illegal immigration.
We are fortunate that the two Ministers who will pilot this Bill through the Committee stage—the Minister for Immigration and the Solicitor General—are humane and compassionate individuals. I have no doubt that they would never put their names to something that they thought would result in some of the Armageddon-like scenes suggested by Labour Members. The Bill addresses a pressing problem in a prudent and pragmatic way. It deserves the support of the House.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
We have heard much this afternoon about the serious flaws in the Bill. More than anything else, there is a complete lack of evidence for its proposals, and a large number of experts have highlighted their potentially damaging effects. It risks compromising community and social cohesion, putting individuals at risk in the process. I am particularly concerned about the impact of outsourcing enforcement functions to private third parties that are not subject to adequate levels of public scrutiny. Contradiction and conjecture are a recurring theme, and I very much hope the Home Secretary will explain why the proposals have been made when there is no evidence to suggest that existing measures in the Immigration Act 2014 are not working well enough or need to be extended.
Let us take as an example the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” provisions in the previous Immigration Act. They came into force only recently and as yet there has been no impact assessment to determine their effectiveness, but the Bill seeks to widen those powers. I am worried both by the potential consequences of such an approach and by what it implies about the Home Secretary’s motivation.
Anyone who heard the Home Secretary’s speech at her party’s conference earlier this month may share my concern. Despite the stated aim of clamping down on illegal migration, the Bill goes considerably further and extends the principle of “deport first, appeal later” to all immigration cases. Not only is there a complete lack of evidence that that is required, but it signals that the underlying intention of the Bill is to undermine the very principle of freedom of movement.
The Government also clearly stated that they would not go ahead with the ill-thought-out right to rent programme without conducing an evaluation of the pilot carried out in the west midlands. Yet here we are with proposals to extend that programme to the entire country and no sign of any comprehensive evaluation from the Home Office. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) made an eloquent argument in those terms.
Moreover, the Home Secretary has failed to absorb the results of the evaluations that were carried out by independent experts. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, for example, found that the pilot forced landlords to make poor decisions and that discrimination clearly occurred against both migrants and British citizens, including making landlords less likely to rent to anyone with a “questionable” immigration status—in other words, as other hon. Members have said, anyone with a name that sounds foreign.
What we do have evidence for is the economic benefit of immigration, including in the form of a warning from the chairman of the Institute of Directors, Simon Walker, who has said that the Bill will turn away
“the world’s best and brightest”.
That is already happening in my constituency of Brighton, Pavilion, thanks to the ongoing changes to the student visa regime.
The latest changes include those to the international English language testing system for eligibility to study. An estimated third of international students who come to study at UK universities could be at risk, along with an estimated 27,000 jobs in the UK. In Brighton and Hove alone, a minimum of 1,000 jobs could be lost, although given that two major pathway providers—Into and Study Group—have head offices in the city, the number is likely to be significantly greater. There is therefore considerable concern about the extent to which international students are being blamed for rising net migration—that is why I want to repeat my call for student numbers to be removed entirely from the net migration figures—and about the fact that many students on tier 4 visas will be criminalised under the proposals if they undertake paid work. The competitiveness of international markets is increasing and we can ill afford to reduce our attractiveness to international talent, particularly as such international students sustain our research output, which supports our economy.
The argument about international students is not only an economic one; it says something about who we are as a nation and what kind of people we think we are. Are we outward-looking, confident and welcoming, or are we fearful, inward-looking people who do not want to make the most of the huge opportunities that lie out there? Once again, the Government are pushing forward with their proposals without any impact assessment, nor do they seem to have any concern for the way in which their misleading and often divisive rhetoric affects individuals.
There is plenty in the Bill to object to, and there are also big gaps in what should be in an Immigration Bill, one of which is clearly the measures needed to tackle some of the problems in our current immigration system. The most notable problem is the Home Office’s long history of poor decision making on immigration cases, as demonstrated by the high rate of successful appeals. My surgeries are full of cases that illustrate the abundant delays in processing.
The Bill not only fails to take steps to improve the situation, but in effect removes the right of redress when the Home Office makes mistakes and individuals are wrongly identified as illegal migrants. The knock-on effects may include wrongfully depriving people of their homes, bank accounts and driving licences. That would be a violation of their human rights in and of itself, but it will be further exacerbated by the changes to the right of redress.
The Bill will also have an impact on asylum seekers. Removing financial support from those who have been refused asylum risks consigning vulnerable individuals to destitution, homelessness and exploitation. Many of those individuals may well have their asylum claim upheld on appeal, but I would argue that the measures in the Bill will push them underground, reducing the likelihood that an appeal will be brought. That will create a wide set of knock-on problems, including for local authorities, which have a responsibility to protect children under the Children Acts. Even if there are strong grounds to refuse asylum, when did we become a country that is comfortable removing every kind of safety net for people who have come here and need it most?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is customary for hon. Members to stand if they wish to be called. I call Suella Fernandes.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My father came to the UK to escape the Kenyan Asian crisis in 1968. His arrival probably saved his life. My mother was recruited in Mauritius as a girl of 18, and she has just passed her 45th year of service as a nurse. More passionate patriots cannot be imagined. It is clear that immigration has brought huge benefits to this country. We have a proud tradition of offering refuge, opportunity and a better life to those who take the risk of leaving their homeland.
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) about how compassion is the golden thread running through our approach to immigration. In fact, my parents’ experience has informed my strong belief that the immigrant story is a Conservative story—one of risk, starting from scratch, working hard and living frugally, all in the name of aspiration, endeavour and self-responsibility. That is why I am proud to be a member of the party proposing this Bill, which is aimed at tackling the root problems inherent in the broken immigration system that we inherited in 2010.
Little is more contentious: last year, immigration overtook the economy as the most important concern of British voters. The aspiration to reduce net migration is sensible, and the Bill goes to the heart of the existing problems in our system. It deals with the loopholes exploited by illegal immigrants, meets the need for greater enforcement and investigation powers, and reduces appeal rights to streamline the system.
Before I came into Parliament, I worked as a Treasury counsel, defending the Home Office in immigration cases, and I saw how the system has been improved over the past five years. The Immigration Act 2014 did much to tackle the pull factors that draw people here. It made it easier to deport foreign criminals by enacting the principle of “deport first, appeal later” and ending the abuse of the right to family life.
Prior to the 2014 Act, I saw at first hand how that right was stretched so far as to make it laughable and pitiful. I was involved in a case that involved the removal of a foreign criminal. One would have thought that it would be straightforward to justify the removal of a convicted class A drug smuggler, but because of the huge number of appeal rights, activist claimant lawyers and technical loopholes, as well as the backlog of cases in the courts system, it took nearly two years and thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money finally to persuade the Court of Appeal that the public interest in deportation outweighed the human right to a family life in Britain. Thankfully, the number of such cases is diminishing, as is reflected by the Court of Appeal jurisprudence in cases such as MF (Nigeria) and SS (Nigeria).
I worked on many cases involving sham marriages, bogus colleges and overturned detention decisions. I saw the practical effect of the huge backlog of 800,000 asylum cases on the Home Office. We have brought that number down to just over 20,000.
Lady Hermon
I have listened intently to the hon. Lady’s interesting speech. With her experience and expertise, can she explain how the provision on strip searching to look for identification and nationality documents can be justified for those who are detained in a removal centre, a prison or a young offenders institution, because I cannot understand why it is in the Bill? Bearing in mind how sensitive the issue of strip searching has been in Northern Ireland, I caution the Government to give more consideration to this very offensive provision.
Suella Fernandes
I was involved in a professional capacity in cases of immigration detention and saw at first hand how limited the powers that were afforded to immigration officers and border control police were. They fell short of allowing them the appropriate powers to gather the evidence to justify a successful prosecution. The facts were plain, but because of those limited powers, it was difficult to gather the evidence to justify litigation. I therefore welcome the increased investigation and enforcement powers for immigration officers.
David T. C. Davies
I have carried out a number of strip searches as a police officer. I assure all Members that it is something that no enforcement officer ever wants to do and that it is only ever done under the strictest of circumstances and with a great deal of respect for the people who are searched. I am certain that that will be the case if it is ever done by immigration enforcement officers.
Suella Fernandes
I welcome that comment whole- heartedly. My professional experience endorses that.
I worked on people smuggling cases. Again, I saw that the regime needed more robust powers in respect of inspection and evidence gathering so that prompt removals could be effected through the right channels.
The new power in clause 30 allows the Secretary of State to cancel what is called section 3C leave. That will go far in widening the removal power when taken with the extension of section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in respect of the certification of human rights cases. That will enable more prompt removals after a refusal decision has been made. The absence of an in-country appeal right will remove the opportunity to exploit the appeals process extended to individuals in the UK. A reality of the previous regime was that the extensive number of appeal rights protracted the time that people spent in this country unlawfully.
More widely, we must talk about the impact of immigration. I applaud the courage of the Government in dealing with this matter in a compassionate, proportionate and fair way. The cultural impact of immigration cannot be ignored. The pace of immigration, the damaging predominance of multiculturalism, and the lack of integration in some parts of this country are having a damaging effect on social cohesion. A well-integrated immigrant must speak fluent English because that is crucial for developing relationships and gaining employment, and it connects us deeply with others. I therefore welcome the requirement for fluency in English in part 7 of the Bill.
We as a community of parliamentarians must be more courageous when speaking out about matters of integration and what is happening in this country, and when talking about the challenges we all face. The Bill deals with the problem of illegal immigration and tightens up the problem of exploitation, and that is the only way that we will command more confidence in the system and ensure its credibility. Our country is neither open nor closed, but striking the balance is hard. In doing so, it is perfectly reasonable to introduce legislation that encapsulates proportion and compassion. Speaking as the child of immigrants and the beneficiary of immigration, and as a professional, I commend this Bill to the House.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to speak against what, in my book, is one of the more heinous Bills introduced by this Tory Government, or for that matter by any other Government.
I am proud to make the case for immigration and to remind our international community that they are valued and that we appreciate their contribution to our communities. I know that Conservative Members like to consider issues purely on economic terms, and I could talk at length about the positive economic impact that immigration has on the UK economy. However, the biggest impact that our international community has on the UK cannot be measured purely in terms of economic growth or statistics; the most important impact made by our foreign-born friends can be witnessed in our communities each and every day.
During my research into the impact of the Bill, I met members of the Renfrewshire Effort to Empower Minorities, or REEM. It is a fantastic example of a group of people who are rooted in our community, who serve their members by helping to provide advice and training, and who organise a number of events throughout the year to help to integrate their members with the local population. Such groups internationalise our towns and cities. They help to achieve social cohesion, and they diversify our villages, towns and cities. That is why it depresses me to hear so many Tory MPs lining up to spout rhetoric about the allegedly devastating impact that immigration has on our country.
The problem for the UK Government is that, instead of developing evidence-based policy, they are attempting to create policy that panders to UKIP sympathisers in their own party. The Bill sends a message that the UK finds it an inconvenience that anyone would want to come and work here, and that the British Government want to drive a wedge between Britain and the rest of the world. Those are not my words but those of one of my constituents who is fed up with the deeply damaging and divisive Tory rhetoric, and who has decided to move away from the UK as he knows when he is not wanted.
Let me briefly touch on a number of aspects of the Bill and explain how they will have a significant impact on foreign residents, regardless of whether they are living here illegally or not. The Immigration Minister states that illegal immigration denies work to UK citizens, but one consequence of this Bill—it may be an unintended consequence—is that it will become harder for all foreign-born residents to get a job.
The Bill is targeting small businesses by shamefully using racial profiling and focusing on takeaways and off-licences. Employers will now face criminal prosecution and a five-year prison sentence if they are found to be employing someone whose right to remain has expired. Trying to ascertain someone’s immigration status can be a confusing process, and many small businesses do not have the administrative budgets to be confident enough to check the status of their foreign-born employees. It is not difficult to see that many small business owners will not risk employing someone who is foreign. That is bad for business as they will lose out on recruiting a skilled worker, and it will also be a significant barrier for foreign-born workers who will find it more difficult to get a job.
Not only will members of our international community find it difficult to get a job, but the Bill will also make it harder for them to have a roof over their head. The right to rent provision will encourage discrimination, promote the worst possible practice in housing management and make it harder for members of our international community to find a home.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill could cause discrimination. We have already heard that landlords will be less likely to rent houses to citizens without a British passport. Does he agree that that will cause further pressure on the housing sector? Combine that with the right to buy and the force to sell legislation, and the Government’s rush to legislate in a scattergun approach will cause further problems for housing, as well as immigration.
Gavin Newlands
I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill will create a situation whereby landlords will have to be 100% sure that no illegal migrants are living in their property. Failure to abide by this could result in the landlord facing a fine of £3,000 and a jail sentence of five years. The vast majority of our landlords will not be qualified, or have the time, to distinguish between a legal and an illegal migrant.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that that is exactly why landlords can just refer the issue. The Home Office will then, I understand, rule on it within 48 hours.
Gavin Newlands
I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not heard about the difficulties faced by the helplines. More resources are required.
To protect themselves, many landlords will operate a blanket approach and will not take the risk of accepting any tenant who was born overseas or who has a foreign-sounding name. The Bill will also make it easier for landlords to evict tenants who are found to be living here illegally. They will be able to do that without a court order. We should be concerned that that sort of practice could be carried over to other tenants who are living here legally. We do not have to guess, fear or anticipate the problems that the Bill will create for tenants. The Government are, shamefully, not willing to publish their review of the west midlands pilot before pushing ahead with the Bill, but reports from it suggest that the right to rent policy encourages discrimination towards migrant groups.
Part 4 of the Bill is particularly odious. We should be reminded that the immigration appeal route exists for a reason: to correct a wrongful decision. The Immigration Act 2014 drastically reduced the number of appeals available, but the Bill removes them entirely for some people. The “deport first, appeal later” policy that was included in the previous Act led to 230 foreign nationals being deported in the first year of its being implemented. I ask the Immigration Minister to make clear, in his closing remarks, how many of the 230 completed the appeal process.
The Bill will create drastic consequences for all members of our migrant community and it sends the wrong message to the international community about what kind of country we are. The Bill will turn communities against one another, extending the powers of the state to unparalleled levels and creating a big brother society where ordinary members of the public will be expected to act as the UK Government’s very own immigration agents.
In short, the Bill is about pandering to the UK Independence party and the right-wing element of the Conservative party. It is ill-considered, deeply divisive and lacking in compassion and any human decency. It will inevitably lead to increased racism. If the Bill is passed it will not be in my name, the Scottish National party’s name or Scotland’s name. I urge the Government to reconsider.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands).
I have the pleasure and honour of representing the most diverse community in the whole country. Our constituency has representatives of every country on the planet, every language spoken on earth and every religion under the sun. Against that backdrop, one may imagine that immigration is not an issue. It is, however, the No. 1 issue on the lips of every individual throughout my constituency for the simple reason that people are concerned that there is a massive difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration. I am absolutely certain that we need to send the message out loud and clear that people who want to come to this country to work and contribute are welcome. Our public services would collapse without people coming here and giving their service. Our service industry in London would collapse overnight if we did not have proper legal immigration. The reality is that in my part of the world the overwhelming majority of people are working and contributing to society.
There is a clear concern, however. When I was elected in 2010, I was presented with more than 50 pending cases that had not been dealt with by the Home Office for more than 10 years. These were people who had been in the country for 10 years without knowing whether they had the right to be here. Their families had grown up in this country, but they still did not know whether they had the right of abode. We had more than 200 colleges in my borough—I call them colleges, but most of them were little rooms above shops where students would come along, get their papers stamped and then go off and work for cash in local restaurants, takeaways and other facilities. It was clearly a way to avoid our immigration rules, so I am delighted that the Home Secretary and her team abolished those colleges and permitted only legal colleges that actually offer an education.
Rehman Chishti
I said earlier that 600 bogus colleges were set up during the Blair years—that figure was challenged by an Opposition Member—and that in 2013 the coalition Government, as reported by “Dispatches” on 15 April 2013, closed them down and removed their licences. Does that not show the problem we had when we entered government and the lengths to which we are going to deal with the matter?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend’s intervention describes the national problem. I was talking about a localised problem in one London borough alone.
We know that some illegal immigrants drive vehicles and work for cash in an uncontrolled way, and every day people approach my office asking me to speed up their claim for asylum or the right to remain. Those individuals have been waiting far too long. A compassionate society does not allow people to wait and wait for a decision. I say, let us make a decision and ensure that someone either has the right to remain or is asked to leave, rather than being left in limbo in an artificial state. It is unfair and unjust, and is no good for our society and country.
We need proper rules and regulations on who will be admitted, who will be allowed to work and who will be allowed to stay. I ask the Minister to make it clear that working legal immigrants are welcome. Equally, can we show compassion for certain parts of our industries? For example, we should allow restaurateurs who need to attract chefs with the right qualifications to bring them in, rather than excluding them, leaving those restaurants to depend on illegal workers. Care homes, too, require highly skilled individuals. We need those people to come here, work in our society and contribute to it.
We then must crack down on those who come here and work illegally. The Bill, which contains measures to make that happen, is a work in progress, rather than an end in itself. We want to welcome people who, be they studying or working, wish to make this country their home, but we must make sure they go through the proper procedures and get proper approval before they arrive, rather than entering illegally and being trafficked or exploited by unscrupulous individuals. I look forward to the Bill progressing into law, and if I can help to improve it, my services will be at hand for the Bill Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid I have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I have some sympathy with what the Home Secretary said—it is not unreasonable to ask people to abide by the law—and I have a lot of sympathy with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the shadow Home Secretary. He said that on immigration Westminster was out of touch and that MPs had not kept up with public concerns. He also said that there was an overall net benefit from immigration, but that the effect was not uniform. Former industrial areas such as mine suffer the impact of job insecurity and depression of wages. There are specific and legitimate concerns about that. My right hon. Friend said it, and he was right.
For my constituency, immigration is not about public services, the NHS or schools. There are 2,000 empty properties in my constituency, but it is not about that, either. Those are southern issues. The problem is that the economy is unbalanced between north and south, which means that my constituency area suffers from low wages and an economy that is not doing well. My constituents want me to raise legitimate concerns about wages, about the north, and about areas and constituencies such as mine that have low wages.
Young people in my constituency go to university, they leave, and we have a brain drain. Immigration comes in, and the workers are replaced by low-skilled migrants. We have a low-skilled workforce. Employers come to my constituency, but they see that there are no high-skilled workers, so they will not end up in Hyndburn. What we get in the end are low-skill employers because they see that there is a high volume of low-skilled workers. What we have is a vicious and perpetuating circle that needs to be broken. Yes, Hyndburn needs immigration, but it desperately needs high-skilled immigration, not low-skilled immigration. As I said, this vicious circle needs to be broken if the economy of my constituency is to benefit.
This suppression of wages is unacceptable. My constituents are right to raise the issue. It reinforces the appeal of Hyndburn to low-value employers rather than high-value employers. High-value employers look at the jobs market and the skills base and find that Hyndburn is not a place in which they can locate their business. That affects the incomes of my constituents and their job opportunities.
My constituents’ grievance is much worse than that, however. Last year, unemployment rose in my constituency month on month—and according to the Treasury, this is supposed to be during the boom years. Everything is supposed to be going well. In eight of the last nine months, unemployment in my constituency has risen, yet we are being asked to take more low-skilled workers. It is obvious what the net impact will be.
Let us take the example of taxi drivers. Driving a taxi is the second largest form of employment in the borough of Hyndburn. There are more than 600 taxi drivers in the borough, and probably another 150 if I include Haslingden. That is more than 700 taxi drivers. Let me talk about the sort of life that these taxi drivers lead. The fare around most of my constituency is £1.50, and the taxi drivers have to live off that. If they go further afield, they get £2.50. My taxi drivers have a terrible lifestyle. They struggle to make ends meet and most of them are on tax credits. This is the working environment that Hyndburn faces. If we bring in more low-skilled and uneducated migrants, they are likely to veer towards driving taxis or a similar occupation, which will only exacerbate the problem. It is not fair to the people already on these low wages; it is not fair on Hyndburn; and it is not going to rebalance the economy.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Immigration Minister for bringing this Bill to the House, and offer sincere thanks for much of the preamble before today, which has given us a flavour of what the Bill is all about. To my mind, the Bill is about fairness—fairness to those who come here legally and do the right thing in seeking to work in our country, but also fairness to those who are already in this country and are trying to make the best of often low wages, which can be further reduced by illegal working.
Much has been said, particularly by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), about whether the Bill is fit for purpose. When I have spoken to the public, to my constituents and to those across the country, I have found that they are very concerned about immigration, so many Members must live in a vacuum.
George Kerevan
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s impression of his own constituency, but he must understand that it is simply not true that concerns about immigration dominate other parts of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, immigration regularly comes about ninth on the list of voters’ concerns.
Craig Mackinlay
I appreciate that there are differences across the country, but in my constituency in particular, the issue of immigration was on the lips of many.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), who have visited many of the camps in Calais. Like them, the mayor of Calais herself has recognised that many of the problems that she faces daily result from the perception of Britain as an easy touch when it comes to working and doing the wrong thing. The Bill will deal with that.
I want to say something about under-the-counter working. The existing civil sanctions were stiffened last year by the Immigration Act 2014, under which illegal employers face a £20,000 civil fine. According to the figures for the last few years, 2,150 civil penalties were issued in 2014, but I would guess that that figure is probably much lower than the reality. The companies involved are often low-asset businesses, or have no assets at all; and the fines have been levied only on businesses. The figures suggest that that the number of illegal employers has not been reduced by the increase in the fine to £20,000.
I welcome the criminal action that will result from the Bill. I pay tribute to the former shadow Attorney General, the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), for the question that she asked on 11 November 2014, at about the same time that she took some photographs during the Rochester and Strood by-election. It was an extremely pertinent question about the number of criminal sanctions that had been imposed under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The answer was just 19. We need the criminal sanction in the Bill, because the civil penalties do not seem to be doing the job.
I also want say something about driving offences. It is considered to be far too easy for illegal immigrants to secure driving licences. That is an issue for the DVLA to address, but I was reassured when the Home Secretary said earlier today that 9,000 licences had been revoked last year. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) how many deaths there might have been. I do not know the answer, and I suggest that the hon. Lady ask the appropriate written or oral parliamentary question, but to my mind one death caused by an illegal driver is one too many.
Anne McLaughlin
I agree. One death caused by any driver is one too many, so let us not misunderstand what I was saying.
Craig Mackinlay
I have not misunderstood the hon. Lady at all. It comes down to this. A person with an illegal licence, or no licence at all, has no insurance. I therefore welcome the new six-month sentence for summary offences, and the imprisonable offence of driving with a revoked licence.
I also warmly support the changes in banking arrangements. Under the 2014 Act, the law on the illegal holding of a bank account has applied only to new accounts, and I am pleased that it is to be extended to all accounts.
As I have not much time left, let me end by saying something about the rights of the first-tier tribunal, which has had the power to impose electronic monitoring tags under the common law presumption of the right to bail. I would not want to interfere with the judiciary, but my guess is that that power has been used in fairly limited circumstances, and I therefore welcome the power that the Bill gives the Secretary of State to allow increased use of electronic tags. Unfortunately, the current electronic tags involve 1970s technology, and the fulfilment of our manifesto commitment to start using proper satellite tracking technology—no different from what we all have in our telephones—will be useful in ensuring that illegal overstayers are found. I should like electronic and satellite tracking technology to be used in tagging generally, throughout the criminal justice system.
It is sensible to simplify things by replacing the six different legal statuses of immigration—whether we are talking about immigration bail or temporary admission—with a single status. I warmly support the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), because this is about compassion for those who come here properly and do the right thing. This is a step in the right direction.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to accommodate two more Members. The wind-ups are due to start at 6.40 pm and we need to keep as close to that as possible.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I rise to urge Members across the Chamber to reject giving the Immigration Bill a Second Reading. The reason for that is simple: this is one of the most draconian Bills proposed by this Government to date. If this Bill is allowed to pass, it will close off support currently available to failed asylum seekers. If this Bill is brought into law, it will place additional costs on local authorities at a time when they are already spending billions of pounds on children in need of care. It will push those suffering the brunt of the cuts dictated by this Government’s failing austerity agenda further into poverty. The proposal will undoubtedly increase poverty among asylum seekers and their children, which to any reasonable person is already unacceptably high.
According to The Children’s Society, support for children seeking protection in the UK can be as little as half that received through the mainstream benefits system. In some cases, children and families would need nearly three times more than they currently receive in order to be pulled out of poverty. Many families are not even able to pay for the basics, including clothing, powdered milk and nappies for their babies. Rates of support for asylum seekers mean that children are living in severe poverty on less than 40% of average incomes. This is an abhorrent situation to place any family in. Are the Government really trying to make the situation worse?
The proposals put forward by the Secretary of State will compel more asylum seekers into unregulated employment to survive, fuelling exploitation and the undercutting of their rights. The Migrants Rights Network said that these changes will
“encourage discrimination against minorities whether British Citizens or migrants…This can only increase social ills, wage theft and abuse, and divide communities.”
The SNP believes that asylum seekers should be allowed to work so that they are able to provide for themselves and their families adequately. We believe they should be able to work so that they are able to make a contribution to the country they call home.
Only last week I and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) attended a Women and Equalities Committee visit to Oldham, Manchester and Birmingham. There we listened to the experiences of a mother whose daughter, now 21, has spent 13 years in the asylum system. Her daughter, now a masters graduate, is unable to gain employment; her mother has for over 20 years been unable to support her family.
This is the reality for many families across this country. These proposals will create a criminal offence which could lead to a 12-month prison sentence with an unlimited fine for anyone found working without the right papers. That is unacceptable. It is grossly disproportionate to harm any migrants in vulnerable situations who may be considered to have been at the mercy of a system that does not work for them. The threat of loss of earnings and incarceration is likely to make them even more unwilling to come forward. In effect, the proposed legislation means greater security for exploitative bosses, leaving migrants feeling powerless to raise a complaint.
I urge the House to vote against the Bill.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
My name is Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh and if the Government get their way this evening I am not sure how well I am going to fare when I seek a property in the London rental market.
At the same moment as the Home Secretary was making her contribution to her party conference, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and I were visiting the Nizip refugee camp on the banks of the Euphrates river in Turkey, only an hour from the Syrian border. When we arrived, we discussed the refugees’ situation with the head of the camp. While setting out the figures and the scope of the crisis and its impact on Turkey, he made a striking point. He said that the people living in Nizip camp were not refugees but guests of Turkey: guests—what a contrast!
Instead of leading from the front, as Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government have, the Home Secretary engages in the distasteful process of “othering” on migration and immigration. Her speech was almost a greatest hits of Daily Mail mythology. She stated that immigration was forcing thousands out of work. Not true. She asserted that mass migration led to the wages of some low-paid workers being undercut, yet there is no credible evidence to support her claim. She made out that there was no net economic or fiscal effect of immigration when in fact all the available research, including that carried out by the OECD, shows that migrants to the UK contribute more in taxes than they spend in using public services.
I will be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that the report raised by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) during Question Time yesterday shows that ethnic minorities in the UK are discriminated against when seeking to rent private sector accommodation. Does the Minister see any correlation between the demonisation of immigrants by this Government and the discrimination against our ethnic minorities in our wider community? He should; there will be such a correlation. This Bill is wrong.
My dad, whom we lost last year, was an immigrant from Pakistan. He was not a threat to the UK’s way of life. He was not a drain on our public resources. In fact, he dedicated his whole working life to this country and then served the people in his home city of Edinburgh as their elected representative. He chose to live here, and in turn the people of his community chose him to represent their interests. When I read these proposals and hear the language being used by the Conservatives to promote it, I wonder what my father would have made of it, and what the Bill would have said to him. Our world and these islands are melting pots of cultures and religions, each of which adds value to our society and community in its own unique way. That is why I cannot support these measures, and I will join my colleagues in voting against the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
This has been a lively, thoughtful and passionate debate. I should like to start by reflecting the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) with these two propositions. The first, with which I am sure all Members will agree, is that immigrants have made an enormous contribution to this country, which we should celebrate, not diminish. The second is that, in this country, we have a proud history of offering asylum to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people who have come here seeking refuge.
Of course there must be rules on immigration and asylum, and of course those rules need to be firmly and effectively applied. We also need to listen carefully to the concerns that have been expressed in the debate about immigration, and to take them seriously. But fairness is the touchstone: fairness to those wishing to come here and fairness to those who are already here. That is why every contribution to the debate has welcomed the creation of a director of labour market enforcement. I also welcome that proposal, but I say of its introduction: it is not before time. The strengthening of sanctions and the enforcement of the law against rogue employers are long overdue. As the Migration Advisory Committee noted in its 2014 report,
“the combination of non-compliance and insufficient enforcement can lead to instances of severe exploitation, particularly of vulnerable groups such as migrants”.
Those points have been powerfully made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson).
Fairness and common sense dictate that we should not support the criminalisation of employees themselves for illegal working—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). To do so would simply increase the susceptibility of already-vulnerable individuals to greater exploitation. A number of Members have already said that those without immigration status can include the victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery, and to criminalise them would run counter to the good work that the Government have done to protect such individuals.
I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said earlier in the debate. There is no specific defence in the Bill in relation to illegal working. If that is indeed the case, perhaps the Minister for Immigration will make that clear when he winds up the debate. Otherwise, there is the risk of undermining the good work that has been done on tackling modern slavery—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
There is a plain common-sense and broader point to make about criminalising employees. If the aim is to come down harder on rogue employers, as it should be, it is a mistake and it is counterproductive to criminalise employees. To build a criminal case, it is important that those who are exploited have the confidence to come forward and to support a case. This measure is therefore counterproductive; we do not build strong cases against exploitation in the labour market by driving vulnerable individuals into the shadows. This is not an area where there is evidence of a need; offences already exist to deal with those who are illegally here, and in my time as Director of Public Prosecutions, this was not an issue where there was evidence of a need to provide for a further offence. There should be strong measures against rogue employers, but it is a mistake to criminalise employees—that point was made by many people in this House.
The same principles of fairness and common sense should be applied to other provisions in the Bill. Extending the restrictions to bank accounts makes sense and does not impose an undue burden on banks and building societies, but rolling out sanctions against landlords who rent to those who are disqualified because of their immigration status is both unfair and counterproductive. That is why the vast majority of landlord representative organisations, which I am sure have spoken to Conservative Members, opposed the proposals when they were introduced last year. What they saw as unfair was:
“Making untrained civilians responsible for the work of immigration officers at a cost to themselves and under threat of legal action.”
Those same landlord organisations also pointed a year ago to another danger: the potential for discrimination. That concern was simply put by them and simply understood by us: landlords, not properly understanding the task before them, concerned by the complications of immigration status and worried by the threat of legal sanction, will simply go to a default position where they will not rent to anybody who does not appear to them to be obviously British. That was the concern landlords were putting forward a year ago, and it is one that the Government acknowledged last year. That is why a pilot was undertaken in the west midlands, with an assurance being given by the Minister at the time that it would be evaluated before any roll-out. As he put it,
“it is sensible to proceed step by step and to look at the scheme after the first pilot…If serious problems have arisen, nobody…will want to take the scheme further.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 7 November 2013; c. 242.]
Well, serious problems have arisen, and a number of Members have highlighted the evidence in the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants evaluation of the west midlands project. I accept that it is a small evaluation, but the figures have been quoted and they are alarming: 42% of landlords were less likely to consider someone without a British passport; 27% were reluctant to engage with those with foreign accents or names; 65% said that they had not read or did not understand the guidance; and 77% were against the roll-out. In the absence of the evaluation from the Home Office, which should have been before us today, that is the only evidence before the House. There was a fear a year ago about discrimination and the only evidence before the House now is of widespread discrimination. In those circumstances, we proceed without any evidence as to effectiveness. I have a very blunt message for the Government: in the 21st century this House should not be in the business of passing legislation that has such potentially discriminatory outcomes.
I turn briefly to the issue of support in relation to those refused asylum. Currently, those with dependent children receive support until their departure from the UK. There is and always has been a power for the Home Secretary to issue a notification removing that support. That has been rarely used in the past 10 years, and the reason has been touched on in the debate today. In a pilot 10 years ago, which involved 116 families, it was considered to be a complete failure, as it caused immense distress and panic and considerable health problems, with only one family leaving the UK as a result and 32 families going underground without support, housing, and access to welfare or health. As the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions acknowledged in 2008, it is a failed policy, yet now in this Bill the Government seek to make that the default position. It will have the same result and the House should not support it; destitution should not be used as a means of enforcement.
In addition, the House should not support the proposals to interfere with the legal processes set up to deal with immigration and asylum. Tribunals have long had the power to impose conditions such as resident conditions and electronic tags. They are independent and impartial, yet this Bill proposes to give the Home Secretary the power to interfere with that.
In conclusion, whatever view one takes of immigration, this Bill is not grounded in evidence. Some of the measures will be counterproductive and will not deal effectively with the objectives underpinning the Bill. In short, it is not fit for purpose, and I urge Members to support the reasoned amendment or, if that fails, to vote against the Second Reading.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
This has been a very wide-ranging and passionate debate. Clearly, there are some issues that deserve further scrutiny.
Let me welcome the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) to his new role; this is the first opportunity I have had to do so. I look forward to further debates with him on the issues that have been highlighted during this debate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman raised a specific point on the statutory defences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Perhaps in the sense of wanting to respond to him positively so that we can end the debate in that manner, I can say that that Act does include provisions relating to defences. There will be a defence to the new criminal offence of illegal working in the Bill. The Director of Public Prosecutions also issues guidance to protect victims from unfair prosecution. Certainly, I can give that reassurance to him and to other Members who raised the point during today’s debate.
May I say to all hon. Members that this Government are firmly on the side of the vast majority of law-abiding migrants who play by the rules and contribute so much to our society? The UK has a long and proud history of immigration and this Government will continue to welcome the brightest and the best, the skilled and the talented to our country and to recognise the contribution that they make.
I thank all my hon. and right hon. Friends for their support of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) rightly highlighted the concern in his community and the need to deal with illegal immigration. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made the important point about exploitation by organised crime. He made the very clear statement that exploiters have the most to fear from this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) talked about strengthening criminal sanctions for illegal working.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) raised an issue in relation to nurses and talked about some of the things that he has seen in his constituency. I can say to him that we take the advice on who should go on our shortage occupation list from the Migration Advisory Committee. That Committee said at the start of this year that nurses should not go on that list. It is considering the evidence further, and we will continue to take account of what it has to say on these important matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) highlighted the new closure power and the scope of the director of labour market enforcement. We have launched a consultation today and I welcome contributions to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) highlighted his experiences on his visit to Calais, a point that was also raised by other hon. Members who have been out to northern France. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) also highlighted this point, and we are continuing to work with Kent County Council on the pressures it has experienced, particularly those concerning unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) made a powerful point about having good migration, not mass migration, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) talked about how we need to stop the abuse carried out by rogue landlords. I hope that we will reach a point in our discussions on the Bill at which we will highlight how these measures contribute to taking action against rogue landlords more generally, working with local authorities to clamp down on the appalling conditions in many of the properties those landlords own. This is about supporting the proper regulated sector and joining up to take action against those who are exploiting the vulnerable.
Fiona Mactaggart
The Minister said earlier that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 would protect victims who might be prosecuted for working illegally. He says that the Bill will enable us to deal with rogue landlords. Will he put in the Bill protection for landlords who let a property accidentally, who are not rogues, and protection for victims of trafficking?
James Brokenshire
We will no doubt discuss that point in Committee, but the Bill builds on measures in the Immigration Act 2014, including the right-to-rent provisions, the mechanisms that operate and the clear guidance we provided in the pilot scheme, and we will continue to do that. We are clear that there should not be any discrimination and that will be set out firmly in the guidance we will provide. That point about how the Government are approaching the measure must be stressed to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower mentioned the impact on children, a point that was raised by other hon. Members as well. Section 55 of the Children Act will continue to apply as regards safeguarding duties towards children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) talked about immigration detention and I repeat that we have commissioned the Stephen Shaw review into immigration detention. Stephen Shaw has recently submitted his report and his findings are being considered carefully. The report will be published by laying it before Parliament alongside the Government’s report on its recommendations.
James Brokenshire
I am sorry, but I have only two minutes left and I need to raise a few more points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) rightly highlighted the exploitation of legal workers and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out the inconsistencies in the reasoned amendment, which time does not allow me to highlight in greater detail.
It is also important to highlight the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) about the “deport first, appeal later” provisions and I would like to update the House. The original measures in the 2014 Act were considered by the Court of Appeal and were upheld as lawful. It is important to highlight that evidence, as evidence was a point emphasised by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). This matter has been considered carefully by the Court of Appeal and found to be lawful, and it has been upheld.
It is also important to highlight the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about diversity and how often the most diverse communities see the effects of migration. There is a need to tackle illegal immigration in those communities as much as anywhere else, and they have provided support. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) stressed that we should uphold the law for those who seek to abide by it. That is the central tenet of the Bill; it is about upholding the law for those who abide by it. We should uphold those principles and deal with illegal immigration.
I look forward to the continuing debates on the issues that have been highlighted. The Bill will ensure the public’s expectation of a system that is fair to British citizens and legitimate immigrants while being tough on those who abuse the system and flout the law. We believe that the measures in the Bill are right, proportionate and necessary and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
welfare reform and work bill: programme (no.2)
delegated legislation
petition
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The petition is from the residents of Wakefield constituency
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Wakefield constituency,
Declares that the Petitioners are concerned about the proposed closure of Wakefield magistrates court and the impact this will have on access to justice in areas including Wakefield, Pontefract, Castleford, Featherstone, Normanton and Knottingley; further that the closure of the court would force local people to travel to Leeds; and further that this proposal follows the 2013 closure of Pontefract magistrates court, which resulted in some staff and work moving to Wakefield magistrates court.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reconsider the proposal to close Wakefield magistrates court.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001548]
Drones in Conflict
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
After this debate there will be a small ceremony to mark the three crests in memory of three Members of this House who died during the great war and who, until this point, have not been recognised.
In the immediate aftermath of that war, the strategist J.F.C. Fuller predicted the demilitarisation of warfare as machines replaced men on the battlefield. General Fuller was well ahead of his time, but the recent use of unmanned machines to eliminate people in a country where we are not actively engaged in war fighting was described by the Prime Minister on 7 September as a “new departure”. Perhaps in time, drones will rank alongside the longbow in the hundred years war, and submarines a century ago. Both in their time were castigated as disreputable and even cowardly, on the grounds that they appeared—initially at least—to be capable of killing with little risk to the operator.
This debate takes place as we contemplate a further vote on military action in Syria, and in the meantime drones have been used to kill two British citizens in Raqqa on 21 August under article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Last week the Prime Minister announced that the number of RAF drones would be doubled, and yesterday the Defence Secretary issued a written ministerial statement about the Protector replacement for Reaper.
I support the development of unmanned air systems as part of the UK’s defence and security. Their endurance, the removal of personal risk from our troops, and the potential for reducing civilian casualties, together with the cost implications of simulator-based training, are all impressive. However, like any “new departure” they must be appraised critically.
Ministers have said that drones operate under existing generic rules of engagement and that nothing more is required. I would like to unpack that a bit, particularly since that assertion appears to conflict with the Ministry of Defence development, concepts and doctrine organisation’s joint doctrine note of March 2011. That JDN notes what we now know to be a “new departure”, and calls explicitly for an unmanned aerial vehicle governance road map. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in advancing the JDN’s recommendations? Will the road map be published? If so, when?
The availability of low-risk, low-cost means of delivering military effect risks lowering the bar for military intervention. It could be that the killings in Raqqa, which I volubly supported in September, illustrate the point. Would the Government have ordered this new departure without the risk-free means of delivery made possible by drones? Indeed, the absence of any obvious criminal or disruptive proceedings against collaborators of the individuals killed in Raqqa suggests that the unmanned aerial vehicle action was not as pressing as we initially understood it to be. Were it otherwise, one would have expected a highly sophisticated delivery and support system in the UK where the offence or offences were to be committed. As yet, we have seen no evidence of that.
In its response to the Defence Committee’s report, the Government denied that the availability of drones lowers the bar for military intervention. I expect the Minister to reiterate that today. However, unless Ministers are prepared to say that risk to our own troops is immaterial in determining whether to embark on military action, which I do not think she will, that line will have to be finessed in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this important debate. He has clearly outlined the issue for military use, but there is an opportunity to use drones for surveillance. In Northern Ireland, we have very active dissident republicans and the threat level is severe. Does he feel that drones could be used, for example by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, to enable better surveillance and to catch terrorists involved in illegal activity?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his normal fashion. He will understand that Northern Ireland falls outwith the scope of today’s debate, but those responsible for security in Northern Ireland will no doubt examine all the options open to them to safeguard the people living in Northern Ireland.
I hope the newly repopulated Intelligence and Security Committee will be assisted by Ministers in applying its forensic skills to investigate the Raqqa killings. I am confident that the action was only taken, as the Prime Minister said on 7 September, as there was “no alternative”, so it should be able to reassure the public fairly easily. However, it or others must substantiate or refute the hypothesis that, in the Raqqa case, the availability of drones lowered the bar for intervention under article 51 on 21 August. If the former is the case, UAVs will indeed be a new departure in the tradition of J.F.C. Fuller, and the argument for tailored doctrine and rules of engagement will be overwhelming.
This is especially important as what may seem like surgical, low-risk interventions have an unnerving history of altogether bigger consequences that are difficult to predict and control. What is more, the use of particular systems by the UK legitimises their use by other states. The quality of our doctrine and our rules of engagement have a direct bearing on those of others. If we are seen to be relaxed about this new departure, we cannot be surprised if others take a similar line.
The use of drones by the US to eliminate operatives in Pakistan and Yemen is highly controversial. I am one of the greatest admirers of the United States, but its post-war history of what has become known as blowback —provoking sometimes game-changing retaliation through the generation of civilian collateral—is alarming. America’s allies are at risk of being seen as colluding to the point that the Defence Committee has called for a clear demarcation in the operation of drones where, of course, interchangeability of US and UK personnel and airframes is very advanced. The Birmingham Policy Commission was assured that UK personnel releasing a weapon from a United States air force vehicle remain subject to UK rules of engagement. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, since manned air operations in Syria—despite the express will of this House two years ago, however right or wrong—suggest otherwise?
We cannot directly influence our allies’ ROEs, but we can ensure that joint operations are conducted appropriately, that NATO doctrine is acceptable and that UK personnel are not compromised. Will the Minister say how many UK servicemen are involved in the operational use of drones with US or other forces and what arrangements she has made to ensure that the ROEs they are required to use do not fall short of the standards applicable in the UK? What will be done to ensure that data acquired using drones are not then used by allies to act against targets in a way that the UK public might find objectionable? The Defence Committee has suggested that the Intelligence and Security Committee look at this. Without wishing to overburden the ISC, would she agree that that suggestion is sound and do what she can to facilitate it?
Drones are all controlled by human beings, but concern remains over the development of autonomous airframes and so-called killer robots. Some level of independence already applies to a few of our existing weapon systems, such as Phalanx, but it would be useful if the Minister delineated the bounds of acceptability. Can she confirm that the UK is bound by the missile technology control regime, the Wassenaar arrangement and not least the consolidated criteria? What is her view of the future for unmanned technology exploitation in the UK aerospace and defence sector? Will she confirm that the UK Government would be unlikely to license the export of autonomous weapon systems?
Can I tempt the Minister to indicate how UAVs will feature in the upcoming strategic defence and security review? It sometimes seems that the only defence policy the Scottish National party has is the restoration of maritime patrol aircraft. Manned airframes for that purpose seem increasingly last century, so will she say whether UAVs—perhaps the US systems Poseidon or Triton, or NATO’s high altitude long endurance proposition —are being actively considered to restore capability taken at risk on withdrawal of Nimrod? Will the MOD now undertake to publish the study we understand is being conducted by the MOD into that matter?
Will the Minister say where we are with the future combat air system? A joint BAE Systems and Dassault post-Typhoon and Rafael unmanned combat air system concept trailed in the Lancaster House treaties and launched in 2012 appears to have stalled. Will she say what has happened to it and the extent to which the challenges of evolving technology designed for permissive airspace and data feeds to deal with hostile environments and semi-autonomy are delaying progress?
Will the Minister confirm that the UK has no interest in the European Defence Agency’s medium altitude long endurance remotely piloted aircraft systems project? I remember being distinctly lukewarm about that, as I am with “more Europe” in defence generally, at the Foreign Affairs Council when I was at the MOD. When will the Navy’s maritime UAV strategy paper be finished and published? If drones are relatively cheap, easy to control, low risk and readily deployable, they may well become a weapon of choice for non-state actors. What assessment has been made of this and, while spending on UAVs is bucking the defence spending trend in this country, what investment is being made in countermeasures?
I would like to consider the implications of emerging technology on military software—on uniformed men and women who serve this country. With the SDSR pending, it is important for Ministers to understand where technological advances are taking not only defence hardware but its software—the human beings who populate the military today and will do so over the next two decades. Air marshals gamely tried to convince us that a drone pilot playing with his joystick in the Nevada desert or Lincolnshire is the lineal descendent of “the few” and of airmen in conflicts since—that is, people who engage directly with or are engaged by the enemy in the air.
Although the mental challenge to a person who logs off and goes home after a shift in Lincolnshire should not be equated with an infanteer in Basra or Helmand, the psychological implications of killing the enemy at a distance rather than at close quarters merit close examination, particularly since operators lack the unit cohesion and support systems of those physically on the frontline.
If Fuller is right, military practitioners will increasingly be technicians, not tough men at the end of a bayonet. “Professional spirit” will replace “fighting spirit”: it will be as if the Royal Army Dental Corps has taken over from the Black Watch. If so, in the sanitised operations of the future, “fighting spirit” may become a positive disadvantage. The military covenant exists because of the extraordinary risks run by fighting forces. If there are few risks beyond the expectation of routine civilian employment, there is no need for a covenant.
General Fuller’s prediction of the end of the infantry was premature, but it may yet have its day as we shift from hand-to-hand to hands-off combat in an environment where societal tolerance for taking and inflicting casualties is low. If so, there are profound implications for how we structure our armed forces, the sort of people we recruit to them and the implicit deal struck between servicemen and the nation, reflected in the military covenant.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Penny Mordaunt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is of great interest to hon. Members. I also thank him for giving a plug to what will follow this debate.
My hon. Friend asked a large number of questions; I shall try to get through them all in the time available. Let me first answer the last point about how this issue is changing both the shape and the look of our armed forces and the types of scenarios in which our armed forces might find themselves. It must be recognised that RPAS crews are fully immersed in the realities of combat. The persistence offered by these systems can result in crews observing the aftermath of their attacks, which is a sobering experience, rarely shared by other pilots or artillery men. As with any squadron that deploys in theatre, RPAS squadrons undergo pre-operational mental health briefings and post-tour briefs. They have trauma management practitioners embedded throughout to monitor the health and wellbeing of all those involved in operations. I know that my hon. Friend takes a great deal of interest in these matters, and I would be happy to discuss the issue further with him on another date.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s acknowledgment of these systems in that they play a key part in our capability and help to save lives. If he will forgive me, I will briefly provide a bit of clarity and on the record bust some of the myths that surround the term “drone”, which conjures up images of machines free from human oversight and able to operate with complete autonomy. That is the stuff of science fiction movies, not the reality. Although drones do not operate with an individual in the cockpit, the fact is that a trained professional human being is in control of the system at all times. The difference is that they operate remotely from the vehicle. The term “drone” also overlooks the fact that the aircraft itself is part of a much larger system composed of other vital components such as the ground stations, networks and, most importantly, the personnel.
My hon. Friend asked what progress has been made on the joint doctrine note’s recommendations of March 2011 in developing a governance road map. We shall be developing that at the same time as bringing the Protector into service. I shall be happy to provide more details, but the rough date of completion for the programme will be the end of the current decade.
My hon. Friend asked some pertinent questions about the Raqqa strike. He asked, for instance, whether it would have happened if this capability had not been at our disposal. That raises hypothetical questions about whether having the capability changes our behaviour and whether we become more trigger-happy, and also about the nature of individual targeting, which, as he will understand, is an incredibly complex process. Many questions about collateral damage and the likelihood of success will also need to be taken into account. I think that the best way in which I can answer those hypothetical questions is to direct him to the Prime Minister’s statement that if there were a direct threat to the British people and we were able to stop it by taking immediate action, we would be prepared to take that action.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) suggested that the Intelligence and Security Committee would review the decisions about Raqqa. Will the Minister give the House a commitment that the Ministry of Defence will engage in the best possible collaboration with any inquiry that the Committee might mount?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall say more about that later, but, yes, it would be very welcome.
Let me say a little about the rules of engagement. United Kingdom policy relating to RPAS is exactly the same as that which relates to manned aircraft. There is no requirement for separate rules of engagement. UK crews always operate within UK and international law, regardless of what other rules of engagement apply to the operation concerned. If the United States were using one of our systems, it would use its rules of engagement, but it would be restricted by our UK red card holder, who is fully empowered to veto the use of a UK asset for action without UK permissions.
My hon. Friend asked about the number of individuals involved in US operations. No UK personnel are involved in flying in such operations, although three UK servicemen are currently involved in training. He raised the issue of data that might be gathered by RPAS when our allies could use them to attack targets that the UK public might find objectionable. The right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned the ISC’s offer to examine and provide oversight in regard to that whole matter. The acquisition and dissemination of the intelligence that is gathered complies with all UK domestic and international law, and oversight from that body is very welcome. I will undertake to keep my hon. Friend informed, and will do what I can to facilitate it.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the development of so-called killer robots, in the case of which there is some level of independence. He mentioned Phalanx, but I would guess that Goalkeeper and other such capabilities would fall into the same category. He asked what regimens, agreements and criteria they were bound by; I can confirm that they are bound by all those to which he referred.
We continue to track rapidly advancing RPAS technology development. Over the last decade, it has become a very important part of our military capability. Given the rapidity with which such technology is developing, I cannot envisage any reversal in the trend. Indeed, I expect RPAS to be used in an increasingly wide variety of environments and roles, and to form a key part of our future mix. The Government have no intention of developing systems that operate without this all-important human hand in the weapon command and control chain.
My hon. Friend asked how UAVs might feature in the SDSR. That has still to report its findings, but, as the Prime Minister has already announced, Reaper will be replaced towards the end of the decade through the Protector programme, which will develop a medium altitude long endurance RPAS, providing the UK armed forces with a theatre-wide persistent ISR—intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance—capability that is able to identify, monitor and, if necessary, attack land and maritime targets. The Protector programme is set to double the number of aircraft compared with Reaper, offering yet more capability.
My hon. Friend asked a list of questions, which I can get the Minister for Defence Procurement to respond to, addressing successors to Nimrod, maritime patrol aircraft and so on.
A variety of options, including unmanned systems, are currently being considered as part of the SDSR for future UK capability. The Department is funding research into the potential of this area of future combat air systems, and we are currently undertaking a two-year study with France scoping the feasibility of developing an unmanned combat air system together. This is complemented by a national programme including further work to advance the Taranis technology demonstrator aircraft.
My hon. Friend asked about exports. The Government take our arms exports responsibilities very seriously. I have sat on the Defence Committee as a Back Bencher and we operate one of the most rigorous arms export controls in the world. The transfer of unmanned or remotely piloted air systems and their related technology is controlled through the UK’s strategic export legislation, and any export of strategic goods such as these systems would need to be considered against the EU and the national consolidated export licensing criteria. Export licences are considered on a case-by-case basis against the export licensing criteria, and in the light of prevailing circumstances at the time and depending, critically, on what we think they would be used for. Any licence to export a UAS or RPAS would have to be consistent with the UK’s international obligations under those regimes and agreements that my hon. Friend mentioned. The overall aim of that is to prevent the proliferation of sensitive materials and technology to countries and end-users of concern. We do not export equipment where there is a clear risk that it might be used for internal repression or it would aggravate existing tensions or conflicts, or would be used aggressively against another country.
On that point, my hon. Friend asked about the danger and likelihood of these capabilities being developed by non-state actors and what we are doing about that. Clearly, that is an area of concern and he will know that we constantly assess those threat levels, and we are currently, as part of the work in the SDSR, looking at measures that could be taken to counter such threats.
My hon. Friend also asked when the Navy’s maritime UAV strategy paper will be finished and when it will be published. That, again, is part of the work of the SDSR.
In summary, I welcome this opportunity to put on record again the Government’s clear views on the benefits of remotely piloted aircraft systems. The role of those systems in armed conflicts will only increase over time, whether to gain a more complex level of situational awareness for tactical crews and military commanders or to attack positively identified targets when required. I find it hard to imagine a campaign in which such technology will not have a part to play. Indeed, in the most unpredictable and difficult of operational environments, these systems are vital in providing situational awareness, often avoiding the need to place our personnel in harm’s way, whether on the ground, in the air or at sea.
I know that the various aspects of this issue are of immense concern to Members on both sides of the House, and we are keen to facilitate visits to some of the facilities involved and to ensure that the House is well informed on all the issues. I will be happy to follow up any further questions that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire might have.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance Bill (Third sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger, after our short break. I welcome the hon. Members for Wolverhampton South West and for Leeds East to the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that they remain there for a long time. I also pay tribute to the work of the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who worked so hard in that role before the break.
The changes made by the clause mean that banks will no longer be entitled to tax relief for compensation payments made in relation to their misconduct and mis-selling. That will protect the Exchequer from banks’ past management failures and ensure that the sector makes an appropriate contribution to restoring the public finances.
Let me start by providing some background to the tax rules in this area. Fines are generally treated as non-deductible expenses in calculating companies’ profits liable to corporation tax. That means that the fines imposed on banks as a result of their conduct have had no direct impact on UK tax receipts; in fact, they have actually benefited the Exchequer due to a change in rules enacted by the Government. That is not the case, however, for banks’ customer compensation payments. Such payments are generally treated as deductible expenses for corporation tax purposes, reflecting the fact that they are non-punitive and often the straightforward reimbursement of income on which businesses have already been taxed. As a result, compensation payments made by banks in relation to the mis-selling of financial products have, until this point, impacted directly on corporation tax receipts.
The scale of banks’ compensation payments in recent years has been unprecedented. More than £25 billion has already been paid out or provided for in relation to the mis-selling of payment protection insurance, with a further £1.8 billion paid or provided for in relation to the mis-selling of interest rate products. Crucially, the exceptional levels of banking sector compensation are persisting. New PPI provisions exceeded £2 billion in the first half of 2015 alone, with cumulative provisions now well in excess of initial market expectations and continuing to grow. In that context, the Government believe that the existing tax rules have become unsustainable. It is not acceptable that post-crisis corporation tax receipts continue to be depressed by conduct failures that in some instances took place more than 10 years ago. The clause therefore makes a change to address that.
The clause makes banks’ compensation payments in relation to misconduct and mis-selling non-deductible for tax purposes from 8 July 2015. That will apply to compensation material enough to have been disclosed in banks’ accounts, albeit with an exclusion for compensation relating to administrative errors, system failures and the actions of unconnected third parties. The changes will also capture administrative expenses associated with that compensation, but will achieve that indirectly by requiring banks to apply a 10% uplift in calculating their non-deductible compensation expenditure. That will help to ensure that the changes are proportionate. It will also ensure that the Exchequer is protected from the large-scale compensation seen in recent years, but in a way that is administrable and recognises that banks, like other industries, will inevitably make compensation payments as part of their ordinary course of business. Overall, this is a fair and workable set of rules, which is forecast by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to increase banks’ corporation tax payments by £1 billion over the next five years.
We have already taken action to reduce the sensitivity of corporation tax receipts to losses incurred by banks during the crisis. The changes made by clause 18 now do the same in respect of banks’ past misconduct and the exceptional levels of compensation it has given rise to. This is crucial in ensuring that taxpayers get a fair deal from the banking sector, which they stood behind during the crisis. I therefore commend clause 18 to the Committee.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to appear in Committee before you, Sir Roger. It has been a good many years. I thank the Minister for her kind words and pay tribute to my predecessors in this role, who worked hard, including on this Finance Bill. It is a particular pleasure to be shadowing the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire. He and I have crossed swords in previous Committees—it is getting on for 10 years ago. I always think it is a bit like that Texas festival, South by Southwest—we are South West Hertfordshire and Wolverhampton South West. I look forward to our debate.
It will not surprise the Committee, and in particular my hon. Friends, that the Labour party thinks that clause 18 is rather a good idea. I will not detain the Committee for long, but I want to make one point and raise one issue. It was on this very day in 2008 that one of the major banks in this country was nationalised—I believe it was Lloyds bank. I remember, because I remarked in the Commons, as a then Government Back Bencher, that happy days were here again, because we were nationalising a bank on Margaret Thatcher’s birthday. It seems to go with the zeitgeist of the current Labour party leadership.
Harriett Baldwin
On that point, I am keen to explore whether the hon. Gentleman supports that leadership.
The Chair
Order. I am going to throw the hon. Gentleman a lifebelt. That is strictly not part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
Thank you, Sir Roger. As a shadow Minister, I think the Minister knows my response.
I have a question for the Minister—one that has just occurred to me, so I hope she will indulge me, as I have not had a chance to research it. The explanatory notes seem to suggest that this clause refer to banking, but the wording seems to suggest that it refers to corporation tax and deductions for compensation. All hon. Members will be aware that the largest car company in Europe—the second largest in the world—has been doing precisely what banks were doing leading up to the crash in 2008. Starting in 2009—which shows that the capitalists never learn and need regulating—the Volkswagen Audi group has been using computer algorithms and deception to con consumers. My personal view is that the Government, with the prosecuting authorities, should look at prosecuting Volkswagen executives if there is a case to answer that they obtained pecuniary advantage by deception—a breach of section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. However, my question for the Minister is this. Would clause 18, on the deductibility or non-deductibility from corporation tax of payments made by cheating companies, cover a company such as Volkswagen if it were adjudicated formally to have cheated?
Harriett Baldwin
Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by agreeing that clause 18, given the way it is worded, applies only to banks. Clearly, it was introduced in response to the fact that the scale of bank compensation, to which I referred in my opening remarks, has been so significant. More than £25 billion has already been paid out, which has had a material and meaningful impact on the corporation tax receipts of Her Majesty’s Treasury. We have always been clear that we want banks to make a fair contribution to their historic costs and their potential impact on future risks to the economy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation relating to the Volkswagen emissions scandal, which, as he is right to highlight, is a complete scandal. There is currently no intention to extend this measure. It is obviously early days in terms of the full scale of potential actions regarding Volkswagen, in particular Volkswagen in the UK and where the company pays corporation tax. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government reserve the right to act decisively through legislation such as Finance Bills when they need to take steps to protect the public finances.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
On a point of clarification, the Minister mentioned that the costs of expenses incurred in addition to fines would also not be tax deductible. As she knows, under a section 166 agreement, the Financial Conduct Authority can ask a bank, at its own expense, to investigate an alleged misdemeanour. As I understand it from what she is saying, if that results in a fine, the section 166 cost is not tax deductible, but what would happen if it did not result in a fine and came off with a negative result? Would the section 166 undertaking be recoverable under tax?
Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend speaks with great insight and authority from his position on the Select Committee on the Treasury. I can explain to him that these measures are designed to tackle the material costs of compensation that are reflected, or provisioned for, in a bank’s accounts. In addition to that, a further 10% for the general costs of administration is attached. Were the costs that my hon. Friend refers to significant enough to require provision in the company’s accounts, they would be captured by this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Banks established under Savings Bank (Scotland) Act 1819: loss allowance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Harriett Baldwin
The changes made by clauses 19 and 20 ensure that special provisions for building societies in the loss-relief restriction legislation extend to savings banks, which share many of the same characteristics. This is a very narrowly targeted change to the legislation to ensure that it applies fairly across the sector and delivers on its stated policy objectives. Clause 20 makes a change to the definition of a bank for the purposes of bank-specific tax legislation, helping to ensure that it is aligned with regulation and delivers the intended policy outcome.
Let me start by explaining the background to clause 19. When a company makes a loss for corporation tax purposes, it is entitled to carry forward that loss and offset it against taxable profit arising in future periods. Legislation was included in the Finance Act 2015 to restrict the amount of profit that banks and building societies can offset with historical losses to 50% from 1 April 2015. This is designed to reduce the sensitivity of corporation tax receipts to losses incurred by banks during the financial crisis and subsequent misconduct and mis-selling scandals. The loss-restriction legislation includes a special provision for building societies, meaning that the restriction applies only to profits they make in excess of £25 million. That reflected a concern that the smallest building societies could otherwise be disproportionately impacted by the restriction, due to the fact that they are non-profit maximisers and reliant on retained earnings to build regulatory capital.
It has been brought to the Government’s attention that this provision does not accommodate banks incorporated under the Savings Bank (Scotland) Act 1819, which share many of the same characteristics as building societies and thus have the potential to be affected in the same way. The changes made by clause 19 therefore address that by ensuring that, from its inception, the legislation applies fairly and consistently across the sector. The changes will have a negligible impact on tax receipts. The independent OBR still forecasts that the loss restriction will increase banks’ tax payments by around £4 billion across the next five years, helping to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer.
I will now turn briefly to clause 20. The Government have taken a number of steps to ensure that banks make a fair contribution to the public finances. That includes the bank levy, a tax on banks’ balance sheet equity and liabilities. The measures also include a restriction on the amount of profit that banks can offset by carried-forward corporation tax losses.
These policies, which will have raised over £30 billion in total by 2020-21, rely on there being a suitable definition of a bank within tax legislation. That definition needs to be able to take account of the differences between retail banks, investment banks and building societies. The current definition, which is based on regulatory concepts and supervision responsibilities, has been successful at targeting tax measures in accordance with the Government’s policy objective. However, as part of the modernisation of financial regulation, there have been recent changes to the regulatory terms used. Clause 20 aligns the definition used within tax legislation with those changes, and so ensures that investment banks supervised by the FCA remain within the definition, in line with the stated policy objective. The amended legislation will continue to apply to the same population and will continue to operate in the same manner.
Clause 19 represents a narrowly targeted change to the loss restriction legislation to ensure that it applies consistently across similar institutions. It is consistent with existing policy and immaterial in terms of sector-wide tax receipts. Clause 20 is a technical change to the bank tax legislation to ensure that it remains appropriately targeted and appropriately aligned with regulation.
Rob Marris
We seem to be dealing with the progressive clauses early on in our proceedings. That suits me and my party rather well: we like building societies, and I suspect that, were we to know more about savings banks in Scotland, we would like them as well, because they are not driven solely by profit, but do wish to make a surplus. I therefore encourage my hon. Friends to support clause 19.
As for clause 20, I have to confess—and this will not be the last time—that some of the technical matters are beyond me, although I appreciate that there is considerable expertise on the Committee and I thank the Minister for her explanation of this technical change. I have one question for her about the clause. It is a troubling one, but she may be able to allay my fears; if she cannot, I will be encouraging my hon. Friends to abstain.
As I understand it, the effect of clause 20, if enacted, would be retrospective to 1 January 2014—that is, a year and a half before the Budget on 8 July 2015. As a lawyer and as a Member of Parliament, I am always acutely concerned about retrospective legislation. I know it happens in Finance Acts in particular; it is common to backdate things to the date of the Budget, for example, and, on occasion, to the beginning of the tax year of that Budget. However, this is the second Finance Bill this year—one hopes it will be the last—and it is concerning to have retrospectivity, even if the measure is a very technical one.
Harriett Baldwin
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, where possible, we always try to ensure that this type of legislation has no retrospective effect. He is also right that that is an important principle that we apply in dealing with such Bills. However, I can reassure him that, as he will see from the impact assessment, there will be no change to the effect of the legislation in terms of its financial impact. The legislation will continue to apply to the same population as before and will continue to operate in the same manner. He is right to raise a general principle that we would seek to observe with regard to the Bill, but in this example, because the institutions in question are already being treated in this manner for tax purposes and for regulatory purposes, it is simply a case of the legislation catching up with the real world.
Rob Marris
Is the Minister suggesting, by talking about catch-up, that the regime has been acting outside the law for the best part of two years?
Harriett Baldwin
The wording in the legislation is being changed to reflect the way in which the system has been operating, and so the change will have no material or measurable impact. Given the regulatory changes that came into effect with the Finance Act 2012, the legislation was ambiguous, so I would describe the change as a clarification of the wording to provide certainty in the legislation to match what has been happening in the real world.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
I welcome clause 19, which fits in with the drift of the previous discussion we had about not all banks being the same and about how treating them the same under the new levy was therefore the wrong approach. We also agreed that savings banks should be encouraged. I am happy to tell colleagues that they are not simply a Scottish invention, but grew out of the savings movement in the 19th century following the industrial revolution. Given the experience of banking in this country in recent years, the savings movement is to be encouraged at all levels.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Pensions: special lump sum death benefits charge
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 21, page 32, line 44, at end insert—
‘( ) In paragraph 16 of Schedule 32 to FA 2004 (benefit crystallisation event 7: defined benefits lump sum death benefit is a “relevant lump sum death benefit”)—
(a) in the first sentence, in paragraph (a), after “benefit” insert “, other than one—
(i) paid by a registered pension scheme in respect of a member of the scheme who had not reached the age of 75 at the date of the member’s death, but
(ii) not paid before the end of the relevant two-year period”, and
(b) in the second sentence, for “sub-paragraph” substitute “paragraphs (a)(ii) and”.”
Mr Gauke
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I add my words of welcome to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. As he said, we crossed swords in Finance Bills many years ago and I am delighted to see him back. I know that he will be an assiduous and thoughtful scrutiniser of the Bill and I am delighted to see him in place following his overdue promotion to the Front Bench. I also welcome the hon. Member for Leeds East to his Front-Bench position, as well as the hon. Member for St Helens North to the important role of Opposition Whip—although I note that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe is still present to provide any necessary words of guidance. Given his additional Front-Bench duties, that is to be commended. He clearly cannot keep away from Finance Bill debates—an attribute that both I and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West appear to share.
Clauses 21 and 22 will reduce the 45% tax on lump sums payable from a pension of individuals who die aged 75 or over to the marginal rate of income tax. These changes will ensure that individuals receiving taxable pension death benefits are taxed in the same way regardless of whether they receive the funds as a lump sum or as a stream of income. April this year marked the introduction of the Government’s radical reforms to private pensions. The historic changes included the removal of the 55% tax charge that used to apply to pensions passed on at death. Under our reforms, lump sums payable from the pension of someone who has died before age 75 are now tax-free. That was not previously the case: the recipient of the lump sum had to pay the 55% tax if the pension had been accessed. We also reformed who can take a pension death benefit.
Individuals can now nominate anyone they want to draw down the money as pension, paying tax at their marginal rate. However, for 2015-16, individuals receiving the money as a lump sum from the pension of someone who has died aged 75 or over pay tax at a special rate of 45%. These clauses meet the Government’s commitment to reduce that special rate to the recipient’s marginal rate from April 2016. That will align the income tax treatment of individuals who take the money as a lump sum with those who receive it as a stream of income.
Around 320,000 people retire each year with defined contribution pension savings. Their beneficiaries could now potentially benefit. Clause 21 removes the 45% tax charge that applies when certain lump sum death benefits are paid to individuals, and clause 22 applies the marginal rate of income tax instead. The 45% tax charge will remain in place where the lump sum death benefit is not paid directly to an individual.
For individuals who have such a payment made to them through a trust, clause 21 ensures that when the money is paid out, the individual will be able to reclaim any excess tax paid. That means that they will ultimately pay tax at their marginal rate, as though they had received it directly. For many people receiving these lump sum death benefits, clauses 21 and 22 will therefore mean a reduction in the tax payable. However, we must of course safeguard the Exchequer. These clauses will therefore ensure that people who leave the UK for a short period, receive the lump-sum death benefit and then return here will not escape UK tax charges, nor will they be able to escape UK tax charges because the member transferred their pension savings overseas in the five tax years before they died. UK tax charges will still apply in such cases, to make sure that people pay the right amount of tax.
Government amendment 13 removes potential unfair outcomes for individuals who have a defined benefit, lump-sum death benefit paid to them by removing the test against the lifetime allowance where the lump sum is subject to another tax charge. That means that any such lump-sum death benefit will be subject to one tax charge only.
Clauses 21 and 22 will make the tax system fairer and ensure that individuals who receive death benefit payments from the pension of someone who dies aged 75 or over are taxed in the same way, regardless of whether the death benefit is paid as a lump sum or a stream of income.
Rob Marris
I knew that we would hit the buffers sooner or later, but I thank the Minister for his kind words. To get it out the way, it will not surprise him to know that we support amendment 13, because taxation should not happen twice. Perhaps he might tell me at some point whether this was another difficulty spotted by Mrs Gauke, who has been known to grace this Committee in the past with her insights and specialties.
Rob Marris
The Minister says it was not.
I am uneasy, however, about clauses 21 and 22, which are twins. As I understand it—I may have misunderstood—an individual who as a beneficiary would previously have been paying tax at 45% on a windfall will in future be paying tax at their marginal rate, whether 20% or 40%. I am uneasy about that for two reasons. First, we have historically tended to impose taxes on death calculated on the estate rather than on the recipient. The inheritance tax, as you may remember, Sir Roger, became the capital transfer tax and then went back to being inheritance tax again, which is where we are now—although they are commonly called death duties. The tax payable back then was calculated on the value of the estate and the thresholds, allowances and so on relating to that. These clauses change that—perhaps the change was made in the past and I am not aware of it, which I readily concede might be the case—and tax payable will now be calculated on the tax rate of the individual beneficiary or recipient.
Secondly, this is money that has been taxed at 45%. It is a windfall. It is money that had tax relief when paid into the pension scheme and it had tax relief while that pension scheme was accumulating its funds. It now gets not tax relief, but a lowered tax rate than has hitherto been the case, dropping from 45% to 20% or 40% due to these two clauses. I am uneasy about that. My fears may be allayed if the Minister or his colleagues can clarify the matter further, but it may be that I will ask my hon. Friends to vote against these two clauses.
Mr Gauke
I am sorry that we seem to have hit the buffers quite so quickly when things were so consensual. First, there is a well-established distinction between the inheritance tax regime and the treatment of lump-sum death benefits. For example, if a spouse dies and leaves his or her estate to the surviving spouse, there is an exemption and no tax is paid. There is no equivalent provision in terms of the tax on lump-sum death benefits. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I disagree with it. His argument does not go very far in terms of a direct analogy between the inheritance tax regime and lump-sum death benefits.
The hon. Gentleman argues that pensions are taxed on the basis of what tax professionals describe as EET—that is, exempt, exempt and then taxed. It is worth pointing out that under this regime, although pension savings are still taxed at the final stage, they are taxed at the marginal rate of the recipient. That does not mean that these sums essentially go completely untaxed—which I think is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s concern. More fundamentally, however, I would argue that we want a savings regime that encourages people to save for their pensions and a regime with a charge of 55%—as it was not that long ago—could be seen as punitive. In the circumstances that apply in this case, it is not unreasonable that there should be consistency in the tax treatment of these pension funds, regardless of whether payments are made as a lump sum or a stream of income.
I do not know whether I have succeeded in persuading the hon. Gentleman of the case for this, but I would argue that these provisions make our tax system fairer. They ensure that individuals receiving taxable pension death benefits are taxed in the same way, regardless of whether they receive the funds as a lump sum or as a stream of income. I therefore hope that clauses 21 and 22 can stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Pensions: annual allowance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 14 to 21.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 23 and schedule 4 ensure that the cost of pensions tax relief is fair, manageable and affordable. These changes will restrict the benefits of pensions tax relief for the highest earners by tapering away the annual allowance for those with an income, including pension contributions, of more than £150,000. Amendments 14 to 21 were drafted in response to industry feedback on the legislation for this schedule, which was published before the recess. They will ensure that an aspect of the transitional legislation providing an administrative easement for defined benefit schemes works as intended.
Pensions tax is one of the Government’s most expensive reliefs. In 2013-14, the cost to the Exchequer of income tax relief for pensions was more than £34 billion. This has increased from £17.6 billion in 2001. About two-thirds of pensions tax relief currently goes to higher and additional rate taxpayers, and around 15% of the tax relief in 2013-14 went to those with an income of more than £100,000. In the last Parliament we took steps to control that cost and ensure that pensions tax relief is appropriately targeted. These provisions take further steps to achieve that. They are focused on the wealthiest pension savers, to ensure that the benefit they receive is not disproportionate to that of other pension savers.
The annual allowance is the limit placed on the amount of tax-relieved pension saving that can be made by an individual each year. It is currently set at £40,000. The clause introduces a tapered reduction in the amount of the annual allowance for individuals with an income, including the value of any pension contributions, of more than £150,000. The taper, which will have effect from 6 April 2016, will be at the rate of £1 for every £2 of income that exceeds the £150,000 threshold, down to a minimum of a £10,000 annual allowance. To provide further certainty about who is affected by the change, the clause also provides that those who have incomes excluding pension contributions of £110,000 and below are not affected by the reduced annual allowance.
Rob Marris
I regard the amendments as technical changes that smooth the transition periods for the input year and tax year. I have to say that I am delighted by the clause. Many years ago, I was a lone voice in Parliament calling for a restriction of tax relief on pension contributions. As the Minister quite rightly said, it cost almost £18 billion a year in 2001 and that figure has shot up.
When I asked the Department for Work and Pensions—in 2003 or 2004—what evidence there was that tax relief on pension contributions encouraged people to save for a pension, the DWP had no such evidence. To me, that was shocking for a tax relief that then cost £18 billion a year. In a sense, the Government were spending, through forgone income, to encourage a pattern of behaviour when there was no evidence that they were encouraging such behaviour. I salute this Government for grasping that nettle.
The other reason I oppose pension tax relief—the Minister generously adverted to this today and clarified for the Committee—is that it has hitherto been incredibly regressive. When I raised this matter 10 or 12 years ago, it was even more regressive. The proportion being claimed by higher and additional rate taxpayers is now down to two thirds; it used to be about 90%. It was astounding to me that a Labour Government—a socialist Government in name—would continue with a tax measure that did not do what it was designed to do and which favoured the very well-to-do. We then had my hon. Friend Ruth Kelly, then Member for Bolton and, I think, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, introducing the nonsense of the annual allowance. It was completely bodged, as the Finance Bill Committee at the time, on which I sat, pointed out to her.
I still think there is a question mark over the whole concept of pension tax relief system for pension contributions, but this measure is progressive and, I have to say, it is somewhat to my surprise that the Government and their predecessor have now grasped the nettle twice. I urge my hon. Friends enthusiastically to support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Pensions: annual allowance
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 4, page 99, line 43, leave out “227B(2)” and insert “227B(1)(b) and (2)”.
Amendment 15, in schedule 4, page 100, line 10, leave out “section 227ZA(1)(b)” and insert
“each of sections 227ZA(1)(b) and 227B(1)(b)”.
Amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 100, line 14, leave out “section 227ZA(1)(b)” and insert
“each of sections 227ZA(1)(b) and 227B(1)(b)”.
Amendment 17, in schedule 4, page 103, line 3, at end insert—
“Exceptions in certain cases where individual is deferred member of scheme
(6A) Subsections (3) to (5) do not apply, and subsections (6B) and (6C) apply instead, if—
(a) because of section 238ZA(2), a pension input period for the arrangement ends with 8 July 2015,
(b) another pension input period for the arrangement ends with a day (“the unchanged last day”) after 5 April 2015 but before 8 July 2015, and
(c) section 230(5B) or 234(5B), when applied separately to each of—
(i) the pension input period for the arrangement ending with 8 July 2015, and
(ii) the pension input period for the arrangement ending with 5 April 2016,
gives the result that the pension input amount in respect of the arrangement for each of those periods is nil.
(6B) The pension input amount in respect of the arrangement for the post-alignment tax year is nil.
(6C) The pension input amount in respect of the arrangement for the pre-alignment tax year is the amount which would be the pension input amount in respect of the arrangement for the pre-alignment tax year if—
(a) the pension input period ending with the unchanged last day were the only pension input period for the arrangement ending in the pre-alignment tax year, and
(b) subsections (3) to (5) were ignored.”
Amendment 18, in schedule 4, page 103, line 4, after “Modifications”, insert “in some other cases”.
Amendment 19, in schedule 4, page 103, line 44, at end insert—
“Modification where last input period ends before 9 July 2015
(11A) If the last pension input period for the arrangement ends after 5 April 2015 but before 9 July 2015—
(a) the time-apportioned percentage for the post-alignment tax year is treated as being nil, and
(b) the time-apportioned percentage for the pre-alignment tax year is treated as being 100.”
Amendment 20, in schedule 4, page 103, line 46, at end insert—
“() subsections (6B) and (6C) do not apply,”.
Amendment 21, in schedule 4, page 104, line 7, after “period”, insert
“(for this purpose treating that remainder as a single pension input period if not otherwise the case)”—(Mr Gauke.)
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24
Relief for finance costs related to residential property businesses
Mr Gauke
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 24, page 36, line 23, leave out
“a property business carried on by a company”
and insert
“calculating the profits of a property business for the purposes of charging a company to income tax on so much of those profits as accrue to it”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 23 to 26.
Clause stand part.
Mr Gauke
Clause 24 makes changes to ensure that all individual residential landlords get the same rate of tax relief on their property finance costs. This change will make the tax system fairer. Landlords with the largest incomes will no longer receive a more generous tax treatment. The distortion between property investment and investment in other assets will be reduced, and the advantage landlords may have over those who work hard to save for a deposit in order to own their own home will be minimised.
Let me begin by setting out the problem that the clause remedies. Landlords are able to offset their finance costs, such as mortgage interest, from property income when calculating their taxable income, reducing their tax liability. At present, the relief they receive from this is at the marginal rate of tax. That means that landlords with the largest incomes benefit the most from the relief, receiving relief at the higher or additional rates of income tax—40% or 45%—whereas landlords with lower incomes are able to benefit from relief only at the basic rate of income tax, which is 20%. In contrast, owner-occupiers of properties do not get any tax relief on their mortgage costs, and finance cost relief is also not available to individuals investing in other assets, such as shares in public companies. That creates a distortion between property investment and investment in other assets.
Clause 24 will reduce the inequity by restricting finance cost relief to the basic rate of income tax—20%—for all individual landlords of residential property. It will unify the tax treatment of finance costs for such landlords, including individual partners of partnerships and trusts. The change will ensure that landlords with the largest incomes no longer benefit from more generous rates of relief.
The Government recognise that many hard-working people who have saved and invested in property depend on the rental income they get, so the clause is being introduced in a proportionate and gradual way. The restriction will be phased in over four years from April 2017, ensuring landlords have time to plan for the change.
The Government have tabled five amendments to the clause. Amendment 22 ensures that all companies are excluded from the restriction, even when carrying on a property business in partnership. Amendments 23 to 26 ensure that where a trustee’s finance cost deduction is restricted, basic rate relief is available to trustees with accumulated or discretionary income.
Only one in five individual landlords are expected to pay more tax as a result of this measure. The Government do not expect the change to have a large impact on either house prices or rent levels due to the small overall proportion of the housing market affected. The Office of Budget Responsibility has endorsed this assessment. It believes that the impact on the housing market will be small and, taking account of the other measures in the Budget, has not adjusted its forecast for house prices. By April 2020, only 10% of individual landlords will see a tax bill increase greater than £500.
The clause will make the tax system fairer. It will restrict the amount of tax relief landlords can claim on property finance costs to the basic rate of tax, thus ensuring that landlords with the largest incomes no longer receive the most generous tax treatment. It will also reduce the distorting effect that tax treatment of property has on investment and the advantage landlords may have in the property market over owner-occupiers.
Rob Marris
The amendments, as far as I can tell, are technical measures to smooth things out. As ever, these things come out in the wash, whether it is Mrs Gauke or someone else who spots them.
It is likely that I will ask my hon. Friends to support the clause but I want to probe the Government on it. As the Minister knows, this is one of the higher profile clauses in the Bill and has attracted a rather large postbag. Some landlords—not all—are concerned.
I appreciate that any landlord among the one in five paying more tax under the provision has almost two years from 8 July to April 2017 to sell the property if they wish to do so, so that they are not boxed in with de facto retrospective action, which can happen if there is only three months in which to sell. I salute the Government for giving that transition time.
I am surprised to hear that only one in five landlords will be affected, but the Government and the OBR have done their research. I am concerned that the measure will do nothing for house prices, which is perhaps a debate for another day. Would that it would bring down house prices, which are far too high around the country. Those prices might well get higher when pensioners, under the Government’s freedoms, buy not Lamborghinis but houses with the money freed from their pension funds.
Mark Garnier
I have a small amount of sympathy with the view that house prices are too high, but is the hon. Gentleman genuinely advocating that the principal method of saving for most people in this country should be reduced in value? The effect on households would be astronomically catastrophic if one were to start reducing house prices. Is that part of his policy?
Rob Marris
Yes, I would like house prices to come down; they are far too high. For most people, property is not an asset that is any good to them until they die—in which case, of course, it is no good to them. The house I live in is worth roughly eight times what we paid for it 30 years ago. That is almost entirely a windfall, though some of it is due to improvements we have made. I will not take long on this, Sir Roger, because I know you do not want us to be too diverted, but were my wife and I to move, we would have to pay an equivalent sum for something else. Yes, house prices are far too high but they will come down when the Government do their bit by increasing the supply of houses.
Meanwhile, returning to clause 24, this is the issue on which I wish to probe the Minister. I may have misunderstood these technical matters because I am not an accountant, but I believe the buy-to-let income accruing to the landlord is counted as income for income tax purposes. There will therefore be some landlords—perhaps the Government have figures—who, before this change, when their non-buy-to-let income, perhaps from a job, was added to their buy-to-let income were standard rate taxpayers, but who will become higher rate taxpayers after the change is made. Therefore, that group may end up paying considerably more tax.
It is not simply a question of landlords who are already 40% taxpayers because of other income being levelled, as it were, to 20%, which is what I understand the clause is designed to do. That is understandable. However, it would actually be promoting people—pushing them into a higher rate tax bracket—and therefore they would be losers. Does the Minister have any figures on that “in between” group—a rather maladroit phrase, but the Minister will understand what I mean—who will be pushed up. I hope that, now he has the piece of paper, he will be able to elucidate that point for the Committee. As I say, my inclination is to support the measure, but I am concerned about that cohort who may be suddenly treated in a slightly different way, which may mean that the figure of one in five the Minister quoted is somewhat low.
Mr Gauke
I hope I will be able to welcome the support of the Opposition for the clauses in full, although the hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask scrutinising questions.
We are not making any claims about the effect on house prices. The OBR’s assessment is that the impact on the housing market will be small and it has not adjusted its forecast for house prices. The answer to the issue of house prices is improvement in supply—I suspect the hon. Gentleman would agree—so it is worth pointing out that housing starts are at a seven-year high. However, the Government remain focused on putting the right conditions in place so that we build more houses and more people have the opportunity to own their own home.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest made the interesting point that home ownership is the principal form of saving for most people in this country—I hope I am not misrepresenting him, Sir Roger. Do the Government share that view?
Mr Gauke
It is up to individuals to decide how they wish to save. We are determined to ensure that the opportunity to own one’s own home is available to as many people as possible. That requires us to increase the supply of homes in this country, and that is a Government priority. We are moving in the right direction, but, as we set out during the Conservative party conference last week, we want to do more to put in place the conditions wherein more people will have that opportunity.
On the impact of the changes, there was a question about whether the measures might move a basic rate taxpayer into the higher tax band. We expect that around 94% of landlords who will have to pay more tax will have a total taxable income of over £35,000. On average, landlords own 2.7 properties. Those currently with taxable income under £35,000 who will have to pay more tax have, on average, larger rental incomes and larger property portfolios; they have an average pre-tax rental income of more than £64,000, and own six properties. It is true that basic rate taxpayers could be affected by the measures, but often—not in every case, but overwhelmingly—those people will have quite large portfolios and may have leveraged up to a greater extent than the typical buy-to-let landlord.
I hope that clarification has been helpful to the Committee, and that the measures will have the Committee’s support.
The Chair
Order. I will make an exception in this case, but, as a matter of form, ordinarily when I call the Minister to wind up the debate, that is it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he needs to be a little more spritely in leaping to his feet.
George Kerevan
Forgive me, Sir Roger. I am concerned about a sub-class of property owners in rural areas who might have unincorporated businesses on farms. They often rely on rented accommodation as part of the diversification of their business. I am concerned that one of these changes will make that more difficult for them, as they will be penalised, albeit unintentionally, with regard to investing in their property as part of a farm business. They might also be penalised with regard to their ability to make relevant commercial deductions for investment loans. In rural areas, property is quite often mortgaged less as part of a buy-to-let and more as part of the general farm business. Will the Minister comment on that?
Mr Gauke
The same principles apply to rural landlords as apply across the board. We want to ensure fairness in how interest deductibility applies: the same rate should apply across the board. In terms of whether businesses will be able to secure loans against property for business development, the measure will apply to restrict relief for borrowings used for the purpose of residential property businesses, not to borrowings secured against residential properties that are used for the development of other business. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and, again, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 22 agreed to.
Amendments made: 23, in clause 24, page 37, line 18, leave out “finance costs” and insert
“costs of a dwelling-related loan”
Amendment 24, in clause 24, page 37, line 19, leave out
“non-deductible costs of a dwelling-related loan”
and insert “individuals”
Amendment 25, in clause 24, page 38, line 26, at end insert—
“274B Tax reduction for accumulated or discretionary trust income
(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if—
(a) an amount (“A”) would be deductible in calculating the profits for income tax purposes of a property business for a tax year but for section 272A,
(b) the trustees of a particular settlement are liable for income tax on N% of those profits, where N is a number—
(i) greater than 0, and
(ii) less than or equal to 100, and
(c) in relation to those trustees, that N% of those profits is accumulated or discretionary income.
(2) The trustees of the settlement are entitled to relief under this section for the tax year in respect of an amount (“the relievable amount”) equal to N% of A.
(3) The amount of the relief is given by—
BR × L
where BR is the basic rate of income tax for the year, and L is the lower of—
(a) the total of—
(i) the relievable amount, and
(ii) any difference available in relation to the trustees of the settlement and the property business for carry-forward to the year under subsection (4), and
(b) the profits for income tax purposes of the property business for the year after any deduction under section 118 of ITA 2007 (“the adjusted profits”) or, if less, the share of the adjusted profits—
(i) on which the trustees of the settlement are liable to income tax, and
(ii) which, in relation to the trustees of the settlement, is accumulated or discretionary income.
(4) Where the amount (“AY”) of the relief under this section for the year in respect of the relievable amount is less than—
BR × T
where BR is the basic rate of income tax for the year and T is the total found at subsection (3)(a), the difference between—
(a) T, and
(b) AY divided by BR (with BR expressed as a fraction for this purpose),
is available in relation to the trustees of the settlement and the property business for carry-forward to the following tax year.
(5) In this section “accumulated or discretionary income” has the meaning given by section 480 of ITA 2007.”
Amendment 26, in clause 24, page 40, line 3, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 26(2) of ITA 2007 (tax reductions deductible at Step 6 of the calculation in section 23 of ITA 2007 in the case of taxpayer who is not an individual), before the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) section 274B of ITTOIA 2005 (trusts with accumulated or discretionary income derived from property business: relief for non-deductible costs of dwelling-related loans),”.—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Enterprise investment scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 26 stand part.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 27 stand part.
Mr Gauke
These clauses and schedules will make changes to the rules for the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. I will discuss clause 27 after dealing with the rest of the group.
The changes will ensure that the schemes are brought into line with new state aid rules, which came into force in January 2015. They will ensure that the schemes continue to be well targeted towards companies that need investment to develop and grow, and they will provide for greater levels of support for innovative, knowledge-intensive companies, which play a key part in economic growth.
The UK has put forward a very strong case for schemes that go beyond the general block exemption regulations, and to support that we commissioned independent academic research into the UK equity gap. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Commission has now given its approval for the schemes. The UK is the first member state to negotiate an approval beyond the basic EU rules. That secures the long-term future of the schemes and will mean that they continue to support companies that need funding to develop and grow.
EIS and VCT have been supporting small companies to access finance for more than 20 years. The schemes provide generous tax incentives to encourage private individuals to invest in higher risk small and growing companies that would otherwise struggle to access finance from the market. The changes made by clauses 25 and 26 and schedules 5 and 6 will ensure that the schemes are state aid compliant and that they offer support in line with the latest evidence of market failure. They will mean that additional support is provided for knowledge-intensive companies that are particularly likely to struggle to access finance.
The changes include the following provisions. Knowledge-intensive companies will need to have received their first investment through the schemes no later than 10 years after their first commercial sale, and may receive up to £20 million of tax-advantaged risk finance investment. Other qualifying companies must receive their first investment through the schemes no later than seven years after their first commercial sale, and may receive up to £12 million of tax-advantaged risk finance investment. The age limits will not apply where the investment represents more than 50% of turnover averaged over the previous five years, or where follow-on funding is being raised.
Companies will no longer be able to use money raised through EIS and VCT to acquire existing businesses, whether through asset purchase or share purchase, building on rule changes introduced in 2012 to prevent the use of EIS and VCT money to acquire other companies through a share purchase. The rules will also apply to non-qualifying VCT holdings, as well as investments by VCTs of funds raised before 2012. The employee limit for knowledge-intensive companies will be increased to 500, providing further support to innovative firms. All EIS investors will be required to be independent from the company unless the shares they already hold are founders’ shares. The requirement that 70% of seed enterprise investment scheme money must be spent before EIS or VCT funding can be raised will be removed, smoothing the interaction between the schemes. It will also be required that all investments be made with the intention to grow and develop a business.
The Government have been consulting on the majority of the rule changes since last year. A consultation was held last summer to explore how the schemes were working in practice and to gather evidence. The Government are grateful to everyone who provided evidence. Many examples were used in the state aid discussions with the European Commission. Draft legislation, based on discussions with the European Commission up to that point, was published in March for a technical consultation. A response to last summer’s consultation was published at the summer Budget. Throughout, my officials have been working closely with members of the industry and their representatives, including through a legislative working group. Many of the changes to the draft legislation first published in March, including amendments to be introduced on Report, arise from those discussions. We are grateful for the industry’s support, which it is continuing to give, including on developing the guidance in due course.
The Government will be tabling a number of amendments on Report to cover a number of areas. Most of the amendments are technical in nature and will ensure that the detailed rules work as intended, and that the new rules work correctly with the existing provisions. I would like to use this opportunity to address a point that has been raised with me by EIS and VCT investors and managers concerning the use of the schemes for replacement capital. Replacement capital is the purchase of shares from existing shareholders and is not currently allowed within the schemes. The Government are keen to provide increased flexibility when the amount invested in newly issued shares is at least equal to the amount invested in secondary shares. The change will be introduced through secondary legislation at a later date, subject to state aid approval.
The Government are securing the long-term future of the schemes by making these changes, which will also ensure that the schemes remain well targeted and provide value for money for the taxpayer. I understand the impact that these changes will have on the way that some VCTs and EIS investors operate. Those that have specialised in investing in older, more established companies, often through management buy-outs, will be affected in particular. The Government expect that fundraising will be reduced in the 2015-16 tax year owing to the adjustment to the new rules, but also that it will recover as existing VCTs adapt and new VCTs enter the market. The Government are encouraged by recent reports from industry commentators that the industry is confident the changes can be managed and that they may help new VCTs focused on early stage businesses to enter the market.
Based on current trends, over 90% of companies seeking investment through the schemes will be unaffected by the changes to the scheme limits. Any start-up or early stage company seeking finance to grow that already meets the current rules will not be affected by the changes. Of course, EIS and VCT are only two of the many schemes that the Government provide to support small businesses. The Government also provide support through other schemes such as the angel co-investment fund, enterprise capital funds, the venture capital catalyst fund and the business growth fund to help businesses to access the finance that they need to develop and grow.
Clause 27 corrects a technical flaw that allows farming activities outside the UK to qualify for tax relief under the venture capital schemes and for enterprise management incentives. The venture capital schemes in question are the enterprise investment and seed enterprise investment schemes, and venture capital trusts. Farming activities have always been excluded from the scope of the venture capital schemes and EMI. Indeed, farming activities were excluded from the business expansion scheme that preceded the enterprise investment scheme from 1984.
Rob Marris
I welcome the continuation of a Labour scheme from 2007 in clauses 25 and 26, and the refinement of the scheme. I congratulate the Government on securing approval from the European Commission, which has been in question for some time. That is also a replay—we will get on to this—of what happened in 2010 with farming.
I am pleased that the employee limit will be raised—to 500, I think the Minister said. That is helpful. I thank the Minister for the teaser he gave us on two occasions for the amendments to be tabled on Report, which we look forward to with excitement. I am pleased that the EIS and VCT schemes are not to be used to take over existing businesses, because that would undercut their whole raison d’être. However, in the light of that, I am a little concerned about what the Minister said about using the schemes for replacement capital. Prima facie, that is not what the schemes are intended to do, which is to kick-start and help to grow knowledge-based, innovative industries—hence the exclusion, for example, of farming. That replacement capital, of course, would keep such a business going, but in a sense it is not new money, because it is, as its title suggests, replacement capital. I am concerned about that point. We must focus on the tax relief and why it is being given.
I am pleased about clause 27. It concerns a scheme brought in by the last Labour Government—and happily continued by the coalition Government and, now, the current Government—to encourage investment in cases of market failure, and it shows that people will look for loopholes. The Minister adverted to market failure, which is also helpfully mentioned in the explanatory notes. Indeed, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who compile the explanatory notes. I am sure it is a big team and they do an excellent job; the notes are very helpful. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Would that this Government and their predecessors were a little more alert to market failure on a broader canvas—for example, in the energy industry. That is one of the things my party is very keen on: using the levers of the state to address market failure.
This small scheme, which is being continued from the Labour scheme in 2007, is of course to do with market failure, but when it comes to farming, it shows just how cunning these tax accountants are at coming up with loopholes. As I understand it, there was no loophole for the three years before 2010. Then the European Union made a ruling on certain aspects of state aid, which meant that a company could not be wholly or mainly a UK company in terms of its operations. Lo and behold, we have a few companies—I think that the Minister’s noun was “handful”—who exploit this to carry on farming activities outside the UK, claiming tax reliefs through EIS and VCT. Had they been carrying out farming activities within the UK from the inception of the scheme in 2007, they could not have claimed that tax relief. Wow, are they cunning! They have been getting with away with it, doing something quite legitimate and lawful, as I understand it—it is avoidance, not evasion—for five years.
Of course, some aspects of farming are very knowledge-based and innovative, but that is not what these schemes are focused on, and this example underlines how vigilant we all need to be as parliamentarians about these cunning tax avoiders. The Minister and his colleagues spent years in opposition decrying my Government for an increasingly long tax code, as shadow Ministers used to call it—although that is an Americanisation, just as they pronounce leverage the American way, rather than using the proper English pronunciation. We will come to the issue of our tax legislation being so long and complicated later, but this is just one minor example of where we have to introduce anti-avoidance provisions because these experts are so cunning with their tax avoidance. I am therefore very pleased about clause 27.
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for these clauses. He essentially raised two points. First, he raised his concern about whether replacement capital was consistent with the rationale behind these schemes. Let me provide what I hope is some reassurance. The intention is for replacement capital to be available only where there is significant new investment in the company. That will be subject to state aid approval, but there are circumstances where it may be necessary as part of any new investment for there to be some re-organisation of capital. That is what we are getting at in this clause. Our intention is to come forward with secondary legislation on this point, and I look forward to the opportunity to debate this with the hon. Gentleman in detail when we do so.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for clause 27. It is always disappointing when a technical flaw is found in legislation, especially after a few years. It came to light only recently and we are correcting it as quickly as we can. It arises from a fairly obscure interaction between the main scheme rules and the definition elsewhere in the Taxes Act. Very few cases of farming outside the UK have received tax reliefs under the schemes.
On that point, the most information I can provide to the Committee is this. HMRC does not keep a record of tax reliefs by reference to the activities of the company. However, HMRC’s operational staff can recall seeing no more than half a dozen or so applications a year, most of which were rejected because the company failed to meet all the requirements. The number of cases that have received relief is small, as I said earlier. Given those points of clarification, I hope the Committee is happy with these measures, and I hope they stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Travel expenses of members of local authorities etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clause makes changes to allow tax relief for councillors on expenses paid by a local authority for home-to-work travel. Councillors perform an important constitutional role in representing communities across the United Kingdom. They carry out their role in their own time, often in addition to other professional and personal commitments, and most receive no payment other than allowances in recognition of the time and expenses they incur. The current rules enable councillors to claim tax relief for business journeys. Where councillors routinely see their constituents at the councillor’s home, tax relief is also due for travel between their home and council offices. However, changes in working practices mean that fewer councillors now see constituents at home, so most are no longer eligible to relief for home-to-work journeys. The Government do not think that is fair. We want to ensure that no one is discouraged from undertaking a role as a councillor due to the tax treatment of their travel expenses. Clause 28 will achieve that aim by introducing a clear, statutory exemption.
The changes made by the clause will exempt travel expenses paid to councillors from income tax, including journeys between a councillor’s home and permanent workplace, where the councillor lives in the local authority area or within 20 miles of its boundary. Secondary legislation will be used to introduce a matching disregard for national insurance contributions. The exemption will apply only where qualifying payments are made by a local authority for travel expenses incurred either on public transport or where a councillor uses their own vehicle for travel.
To ensure that councillors do not benefit from an unlimited tax relief, the exemption will be limited to the statutory approved rates where qualifying payments are made to a councillor for travel in their own vehicle. This will make the rules clearer and more consistent for local authorities and councillors. The measure will affect only the tax liability of elected or appointed councillors who currently receive taxable home-to-work travel expenses.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
How many councillors does the Minister anticipate will benefit from these changes?
Mr Gauke
I think the numbers are difficult to calculate because they will depend on the particular arrangements that councillors wish to pursue and whether they claim or not. We received representations from a large number of councils—particularly county councils—that said the change would be welcomed.
Wes Streeting
I should have said that I am still an elected member of the Redbridge London Borough Council, albeit an unpaid one. The reason I ask is that, although I agree with the Minister’s case about fairness to local councillors, I wonder how he squares that with, for example, the changes the Government made to local government pensions, which meant that such people—in particular, leaders, mayors and cabinet members, who often give up their full-time work—are no longer eligible for the local government pension scheme. Surely these changes, which I do not think will apply to many authorities because many do not reimburse councillors for any journeys, are pretty small beer compared with the previous Government’s changes.
Mr Gauke
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman is advocating reversal of the changes made in the previous Parliament to pensions for councillors. I would argue that there is a degree of consistency with those changes. Councillors do not perform a job in the normal sense of most people in employment, so we argued in the previous Parliament that for them to have the same pension provision as most employees would not be appropriate. It is right to have a special regime that is not the same as that applied to people in employment with regard to travel expenses, and that is why we have brought in this measure.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Following on from the intervention by the hon. Member for Ilford North, I spent 11 years as a district councillor and several of those in cabinet. There always seemed an anomaly to me. I never joined the local government pension scheme and I always thought it was rather incorrect for councillors to be allowed to do so, because it equated their position with that of local government staff, rather than elected volunteers. The Government are to be congratulated. There were many in local government—possibly the silent majority—who welcomed that decision and had been rather embarrassed by being allowed to be members of that pension fund.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not my purpose to reopen the debate on pensions and local councillors, however tempting that might be, but I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.
The clause will support councillors in the vital constitutional role they perform by exempting travel expenses paid by their local authorities from liability to income tax, and I hope it will stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
I do not propose to spend a long time on this. I have never been a councillor but it would be seen as navel gazing for us as elected representatives to spend a long time on this clause. The Opposition support the clause because we want to encourage democracy and so that democratic parties can get the best candidates, and this measure is all part of that spectrum.
I would like the Minister to clarify one point. He referred to journeys by public transport. I apologise that I was not concentrating enough when he made that reference. My understanding from the Chartered Institute of Taxation is that this change would not cover travel by public transport. If public transport travel is not covered, will the Minister please explain why? Will he also say whether, for example, a mayor who travelled by bicycle might claim these expenses?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. It is always good to see a consensus on supporting democracy. As I said earlier, the provision does apply to public transport, so the hon. Gentleman can be reassured that there is nothing that would discourage people using public transport. The provision will apply to public transport or where a councillor uses their own vehicle.
Mr Gauke
I am afraid that I do not think that the travel expenses regime will apply to bicycling. I sense that the hon. Gentleman has his first campaigning issue to get his teeth into as a Front Bencher.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 29
London Anniversary Games
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clause makes changes to ensure that sports people who visited the UK to compete in the London Anniversary games are exempt from tax on any income received as a result of their performance at the games.
As hon. Members will know, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games were an extraordinary success, with stunning wins for British athletes, beautiful stadiums and an unforgettable atmosphere. For the Olympics, the Government provided an exemption from income tax for non-resident sportspersons. That was a condition of the bid to host an internationally mobile, world-class event.
The success of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics did not end there: we have now created a legacy programme that has delivered urban regeneration and engagement in sporting activities. The prestigious 2015 London Anniversary games were an important part of that legacy, attracting icons that hon. Members will remember from 2012.
The clause applies the same exemption policy that the Government provided in 2012. It benefits athletes who reside overseas and visited the UK to participate in the London Anniversary games, which were held in July. Importantly, this tax exemption encouraged more world-class international athletes to compete in the event. Following the announcement in the Budget, Usain Bolt confirmed that he would compete and he went on to win the 100-metre race, which drew a much wider audience’s attention to the success of the Olympics and London. The exemption was granted on an exceptional basis owing to the opportunity the event provided to build on the legacy of the 2012 games.
Christian Matheson
The London Anniversary games were specifically related to the Olympics, which were a great success for London and the whole of the nation. I have to say that a feeling remains in other parts of the UK that London, notwithstanding its success, does seem to get more than the lion’s share of sporting events. Is there a view in government that specific provisions such as this, which help to attract world-class athletes such as Usain Bolt, might be extended on individual bases to other great events that take place outside London, so that they too might benefit from the attendance of such athletes?
Mr Gauke
I can give one good example: we applied the same exemption for the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games. That is an example of the Government’s willingness to do that. Again, that was part of maintaining the Olympic legacy and ensuring that we could get top athletes to compete in the Commonwealth games. The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point and I hope he accepts that I have given a fair answer to it. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester raised a point that I wished to raise. The Minister’s reply was not entirely clear. My hon. Friend’s question, as I understood it, was whether such ad hoc arrangements would continue to be ad hoc, or whether they would be systematised into our tax rules on a general basis, so that we can continue to attract world-class athletes and other competitors, indeed to other parts of the country as well as London.
I echo what my hon. Friend said. As I am sure all hon. Members know, the Olympic games were revived in Much Wenlock, just down the road from Wolverhampton South West, in the late 19th century. We want to encourage such events and we want more to be held outside London, so it seems logical for the Government to look at systematising the tax relief, rather than giving it on an ad hoc basis, with the uncertainty that that brings. Do the Government have any plans to investigate whether there should be—or indeed should not be—such a permanent tax relief?
Mr Gauke
I hope to provide a little more clarity. In my previous answer, I wanted to make the point that we are not London-centric in granting relief. Indeed, as I said, we granted relief for the Glasgow Commonwealth games.
As for providing an overall exemption, we allow tax exemptions for sporting events only if they are a condition of a bid to host an international mobile and major world-class sporting event. We see the clause as part of the legacy of the Olympics, which is why we have made this decision. Any potential exceptions to the rule will be considered on a case-by-case basis and we will continue to take that approach, but we are of course determined to ensure that we attract major sporting events to this country. We are currently hosting the rugby world cup, although unfortunately England are no longer participating in it, and there will be major football finals in Cardiff in forthcoming years. We believe that the current policy of providing exemptions when world-class events request them as part of the bid conditions is the right approach, and we intend to continue with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
R&D expenditure credits: ineligible companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 30 makes changes to correct an anomaly in research and development tax credits legislation by ensuring that universities and charities are unable to claim the new above-the-line expenditure credit, in line with the original intention of the policy. The change will ensure that R&D tax credits remain targeted at business R&D investment. The Government remain committed to supporting university research, and in 2015-16 will provide £4.6 billion of support through science resource funding.
The above-the-line credit was introduced in 2013. It was never intended that universities and charities would be able to claim it, and they were unable to do so under the previous large company scheme. However, HMRC has now received a number of claims from charities, mostly universities. Clause 30 amends the legislation so that it meets the original policy intention.
The Government are committed to supporting university research, which is funded by higher education funding bodies and research councils. Those organisations are better targeted to the research universities undertake, and the change maintains the focus on them as routes to funding research excellence in universities.
The clause amends the qualifying conditions for the above-the-line credit so that an institution of higher education or a charity will be ineligible to make a claim in relation to any expenditure incurred on or after 1 August 2015. The measure will impact only on universities and charities currently carrying out qualifying R&D activities. It is estimated that it will affect fewer than 50 universities and charities that were claiming under the previous rules, and will protect £150 million of revenue for the Exchequer each year. The change only applies to universities and charities in the way they are prescribed by law and does not impact on spin-outs—separate commercial entities of universities that transform university research into commercial products. They are fully liable for corporation tax and were always intended to be able to claim R&D tax credits.
R&D tax credits remain an effective mechanism for supporting business investment. A recent study conducted by HMRC found that each £1 of tax forgone stimulated between £1.53 and £2.35 of additional R&D investment. The clause will ensure that R&D tax credits remain effective and targeted towards business R&D investment.
Rob Marris
The research and development tax credit scheme has been successful. It was, of course, introduced under a Labour Government. The coalition Government’s decision in 2013 to extend research and development tax relief to large companies was welcome. Historically, probably since the turn of the last century more than 100 years ago, this country has not invested enough in research and development. That is one reason why we have poor productivity—another is Government policy, of course. That trend needs to be reversed.
Christian Matheson
Will the Minister clarify one small area I am unsure of, which comes from my experience serving as Member for City of Chester? When Shell decided to close its research and technology area at Thornton in my constituency, which contains a large petrochemicals sector, it gave the Thornton research centre over to the University of Chester, which is growing in size, in stature and in academic reputation. Thornton science park has since become a very successful seedbed for growing companies as well as for academic research. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West talked about spin-off companies, and I am looking for clarification from the Minister on a similar issue. Some joint venture companies comprise higher education institutions, such as the University of Chester, and companies from the private sector that are engaged in research that may well bring economic development into an area or into the nation, and may lead to new technologies being developed in the area. Will the participation of a higher education institution preclude a company from receiving such grants? Is this an area on which the Government are not yet quite clear?
Mr Gauke
Again, I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West for the clause. I reiterate that the move towards above-the-line credit has been a success. Since 2013 it has ensured that the benefits of R&D relief are more visible and has provided greater financial and cash-flow support to companies, regardless of their corporation tax liability. The aim of the credit is the same as that of the previous large company scheme—to incentivise additional R&D investment—but it uses a completely different design. Teething problems can occur, and claims from universities and charities were not anticipated when the scheme was designed. HMRC monitors the use of reliefs to check that they are being used as intended, and occasionally it is necessary to clarify the law to support the original policy intention. This is one of those occasions.
On the question raised by the hon. Member for City of Chester about whether the change will discourage businesses from collaborating with universities and their R&D activities, no, we do not believe that it will. This change will prevent universities and charities from claiming above-the-line credit for their individual R&D. Firms are already able to claim R&D tax credits for qualifying R&D projects that are subcontracted to universities, and that will remain the case. The Government remain committed to promoting business collaboration with universities. Innovate UK schemes provide support for firms collaborating with academia. That includes catapult centres, which are a series of physical centres comprising the very best of the UK’s businesses, scientists and engineers working side by side on late-stage R&D, transforming high-potential ideas into new products and services to generate economic growth. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by that.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West asked about funding for science research. Science resource funding was protected through the ring-fencing of £4.6 billion per year. The Government are committed to £1.12 billion per year on capital spend until 2021, rising with inflation. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Committee. With those points, I hope that the clause can stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Loan relationships and derivative contracts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 33 stand part.
Government amendments 8 to 10.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clauses and the schedule make wide-ranging changes to the corporation tax rules for company debt—referred to as loan relationships in the statute—and derivatives. These changes bring the rules up to date, making them simpler and easier for companies to use and at the same harder to misuse or manipulate.
It may help the Committee if, before I explain the changes in detail, I provide some background. The rules on loan relationships are almost 20 years old. They are based on the straightforward idea of taxing company debt on the basis of commercial accounts. The rules operate without difficulty for many, particularly for smaller companies with simple financing arrangements, but they also have to cater for commercial situations that can be highly complicated. The Government have frequently received comments on the complexity of the rules. At the same time, the loan relationships and derivatives regimes have frequently been targeted by tax avoiders. Often, the reaction to those attempts at avoidance has been to close loopholes by very specific, narrowly focused changes to the law. That approach has generally been successful, but it has not deterred avoiders from finding new ways to get round the rules or abuse them. It has also added to their complexity. In addition, over the years there have been changes to the accounting standards that underlie the tax rules, and further significant changes are being made at the moment.
Those factors mean that the time is ripe for a general review of this part of the tax code. Indeed, an article in Tax Journal in December 2014 noted that such a review was “long overdue and necessary”. At Budget 2013, the Government announced a consultation on a package of proposals to modernise the legislation. The clauses and schedule before the Committee today are the outcome of that consultation.
We are making extensive changes. I will explain briefly the most significant elements of the package. First, we are aligning taxable amounts more closely with commercial accounting profits, so taxation of loans and derivatives will now be based on amounts recognised in accounts as profits or losses, similar to the way trading profits are calculated. In contrast, up to now the tax rules for loans and derivatives have looked at amounts recognised anywhere in accounts—in equity or reserves, for example. A transitional rule will ensure that this change is broadly tax-neutral and that nothing is taxed twice or not at all. A recent article in Tax Journal described the change as “a hugely welcome simplification”. Alongside it, we are making further changes that will reduce the occasions when taxation does not follow the accounting treatment.
We are introducing new corporate rescue provisions, which will benefit companies that are in genuine financial difficulty and looking to restructure their loans to avoid insolvency. The rules will make it easier for such companies to agree arrangements with creditors without incurring a tax charge. The change has been warmly welcomed and will help companies to stay in business, to continue contributing to the UK economy and to preserve jobs. For example, in its February 2015 client newsletter, Allen & Overy noted:
“These exemptions received a uniformly positive welcome.”
I described how, although they effectively close down avoidance schemes as they come to light, the existing narrowly focused rules have not stopped attempts to target or use company loans and derivatives in tax avoidance arrangements. Because of that, we are strengthening the protection for the Exchequer by introducing new regime-wide anti-avoidance rules, which will deter and block arrangements of any kind that are entered into with the intention of obtaining a tax advantage by way of the loan relationships or derivatives rules. Unlike many existing anti-avoidance provisions, the new rules do not focus narrowly on specific situations or types of avoidance, so it will be harder to sidestep them.
It is important that the rules do not interfere with genuine commercial activity, so we have worked closely with interested parties to ensure that they will prevent avoidance without affecting legitimate business transactions. A number of existing anti-avoidance rules will now be redundant, so we are repealing them, which will be a welcome simplification.
Consultation has continued since the Bill was introduced and has identified the need for Government amendments to schedule 7 to deal with a potential unintended outcome. The amendments do not represent any substantive change of policy, but simply bring forward the date at which the corporate rescue reliefs that I described a few moments ago become available. The Bill currently provides for those reliefs to be available from the date of Royal Assent, but we have recently been made aware in consultation that a small number of companies have entered into transactions on the basis that retrospective relief would be available from 1 January 2015, as was envisaged in earlier draft legislation published in December 2014. As a result, they would not qualify for relief and so would be in danger of becoming insolvent, with possible loss of jobs.
As a rule, the Government do not legislate to take account of the fact that taxpayers have acted on the basis of unenacted legislation, but I am mindful that in this case the whole purpose of the corporate rescue reliefs is to avoid unnecessary insolvencies and preserve businesses and jobs, so the amendments reset the commencement date to 1 January 2015.
In conclusion, the provisions support the Government’s aim of promoting a tax system that is efficient, competitive, predictable, simple and fair. They bring the tax system for corporate debt and derivative contracts up to date and make it simpler. They make it easier for companies to restructure debt to avoid insolvency and they make it harder for tax avoiders to get around or take advantage of the rules. I therefore commend clauses 31 and 33 and schedule 7 to the Committee.
Rob Marris
These are welcome anti-avoidance measures, although I must say that they are of such complexity that I do not understand them and, with respect to my hon. Friends, I suspect that few of them do either. I am pleased that the Government have listened to the consultation and changed the commencement date to 1 January 2015, which was something on which I was lobbied.
The provisions indicate how difficult it is to simplify our tax regime—something with which the Minister will have struggled in the past five and a half years since he got into government. It is easy to argue from the Opposition Benches for a simplified tax regime, and of course I would argue for that as well. Clause 31 looks simple: it is 11 words long—now that is nice and simple. However, those 11 words incorporate schedule 7, which is, at 43 pages, the longest schedule I can recall seeing appended to any Bill. I would like some further reassurance from the Minister, if he is in a position to give it, that a 43-page schedule simplifies our tax regime.
Mr Gauke
I would probably pray in aid the various remarks in the articles I quoted earlier. We consulted extensively with industry and tax professionals to ensure that the changes we are making are balanced and fair, and that they fulfil the aims of the review, which include making the rules as simple as possible to understand and use. The rules are straightforward for the great majority of companies with ordinary loans, which means that the great majority of small companies will experience simplification. However, the measure must also cater for highly complex commercial situations and financial instruments, so it can never be entirely simple.
Key simplifications that we are making include aligning tax and commercial accounting profits more closely. As I said, the 30 July article in Tax Journal, which I suspect the hon. Gentleman will read assiduously from now on, described the measure as “a hugely welcome simplification”. The changes include the repeal of about 26 pages of primary legislation with more than seven pages of anti-avoidance rules. There is a net increase of 18 pages, but I think it is fair to say that, as the Office of Tax Simplification has pointed out, the number of pages of legislation is not always the best measure of complexity.
I note that by and large there is consensus between us on the measures, although not about the pronunciation of “schedule”.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Loan relationships and derivative contracts
Amendments made: 8, in schedule 7, page 179, line 6 leave out “and 33(2)”
Amendment 9, in schedule 7, page 179, line 8, leave out
“the day on which this Act is passed” and insert “1 January 2015”
Amendment 10, in schedule 7, page 179, line 8, at end insert—
107A Paragraph 33(2) has effect in relation to the release of a debtor relationship of a company on or after the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Mr Gauke.)
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32
Intangible fixed assets: goodwill etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
The clause removes corporation tax relief in relation to purchased goodwill and certain other customer-related intangible assets. The changes ensure that companies will no longer be able to reduce their corporation tax profits by claiming relief for the cost of purchased goodwill written off in the company accounts. Clause 32 applies to all acquisitions made on or after 8 July 2015. Companies that have completed acquisitions before 8 July 2015 will not be affected.
In accounting terms, purchased goodwill is the balancing figure between the purchase price of a business and the net value of the assets acquired. Goodwill can therefore be thought of as representing the value of a business’s reputation and customer relationships. Customer-related intangible assets include the types of assets associated with the goodwill of the business or the business’s reputation, such as customer lists, customer information and unprotected trading names or marks.
The Finance Act 2002 introduced a new tax regime for companies’ intangible fixed assets commencing on 1 April 2002. The treatment of intangible assets generally follows the accounting treatment set out in the legislation, which treats goodwill like any other type of intellectual property such as a trademark, patent, design right or copyright. However, in reality goodwill is simply the difference between the purchase price of a business and the business’s net asset value. It represents the premium a buyer will often pay to acquire an established business, compared with buying business assets and commencing a new business. It is therefore different from other, separable, intangible assets such as websites and patents.
The existing rules allow the buyer to claim annual corporation tax relief for the cost of the goodwill. That relief reduces corporation tax profits, as the cost of the purchased goodwill is written down in the company accounts or is given on a fixed-rate basis of 4% per annum. That advantage is not generally available to companies that undertake mergers and acquisitions by purchasing the shares of the target company, nor is it available to new start-up businesses or to businesses that grow organically. The current rules can therefore distort commercial practices and lead to manipulation and avoidance. For example, relieving the cost of a business acquisition can affect the price payable in anticipation of the available tax relief.
The changes made by clause 32 will withdraw amortisation and fixed-rate relief for all goodwill and customer-related intangible asset acquisitions that occur on or after 8 July 2015. Instead, relief will be given if and when those assets are subsequently sold or otherwise disposed of. The clause will treat any loss arising on such a disposal as a non-trading loss. That is to limit how such losses can be relieved. Existing cases—companies that acquired goodwill or other relevant assets before 8 July 2015—will not be affected.
In conclusion, clause 32 removes the financial advantage for structuring a merger or business acquisition so that goodwill can be recognised by the buyer. It levels the playing field for mergers and acquisitions, and brings the UK in line with international standards. I hope the Committee will agree to its standing part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
This seems to be a sensible measure to level the playing field, although it may have an effect on businesses that are not incorporated and where there could be no question of shares being substituted. The change builds on the excellent 2002 legislation on the taxation of intangible assets, and Opposition Members should support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Group relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 34 makes the tax system simpler by removing differences in the treatment of consortium link companies based in the UK and other jurisdictions. The current rules state that, for corporation tax group relief to be available between a group and a consortium, the company that links the two must be located in the UK or the European economic area. Where the link company is in the EEA but not the UK, there are other requirements.
The changes made by clause 34 remove all requirements relating to the location of the link company so that relief may be given regardless of where it is based. The change simplifies the tax system by putting consortium relief on the same footing as normal group relief. That supports the Government’s ambition to continually improve the UK’s international ranking as a place to do business.
Rob Marris
With due respect to the Minister, I would like a little more clarification, because I do not think this is simply a simplifying measure. I may be wrong, but it appears to change the nature of the game. As I understand it, it removes the requirement for all link companies to be either in the UK or the EEA; a link company could therefore be in Canada, Hong Kong or Indonesia, for example. That seems quite a big change and more than merely a simplification.
Will the Minister explain a little more—touching on more than just simplification—why it is desirable for the tax regime of UK plc to be so flexible about the headquarters and location of link companies, when most, if not all, hon. Members present would recognise to a greater or lesser extent that the UK has a particular problem with companies disappearing to, or setting up in, tax havens overseas. I am concerned that the clause, if implemented, would increase opportunities for companies and groups of companies to take advantage of tax havens, to the disadvantage of UK plc, those we represent and companies that are playing morally by the rules, as opposed to companies such as Facebook, which, we heard this week, appears to be adhering to UK legislative rules, but to its considerable financial advantage. That suggests that the UK legislative rules adhered to by the Facebooks, Starbucks and Googles of this world are not sufficiently tight. I am concerned that clause 24 goes in the wrong direction on that issue.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Mel Stride.)
Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. Welcome to what may prove to be a briefer sitting than you were anticipating. I hope that that does not upset your plans too much.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West raised a concern that the clause might permit aggressive tax planning or tax avoidance by multinational companies, and that a consequence could be lost revenue to the Exchequer. Let me reassure him. We believe that the clause will have a negligible impact on the Exchequer, but it will simplify the UK tax system. To some extent, if the existing rules were designed to deal with tax avoidance, they were not going to be able to do that effectively anyway because companies could put in a European economic area or UK-linked company.
We do not think the clause opens up a particular vulnerability in any event, but the hon. Gentleman made an important point about ensuring that our tax system is fit for purpose in a world in which multinational companies have choices and can structure themselves in particular ways. That is why the UK was keen to encourage the OECD to look at the international tax system as part of the base erosion and profit shifting project. That project reported recently; it was debated by G20 Finance Ministers at Lima last week and recommendations have been taken on board. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, the UK will implement the BEPS recommendations.
There is an important point, but I do not believe that it is relevant to the clause. The Government remain determined that the international tax system should ensure a closer alignment between economic activity and taxing rights. That is the key to the BEPS reforms, which is an agenda we are keen to push forward.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
There is a difference between something that affects those currently trading in a particular way and the actions that a group of companies might take in the light of a changed tax regime. Is the Minister confident that a change of behaviour through company restructuring following the changes in the clause is unlikely because there will not be much of a loss of revenue from linked companies and so on, and there will not be a change in behaviour that will lead to such a loss in the future?
Mr Gauke
We do not believe that there will be a change of behaviour that will lead to a loss of revenue as a consequence of the clause. I hope that that provides reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
CFC charge: abolition of relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clauses 35 and 36 make changes to prevent the offsetting of UK losses and other surplus expenses against tax that should be paid by UK companies in accordance with the reformed controlled foreign companies rules. That will improve the effectiveness of our CFC regime in countering aggressive tax planning by UK multinational groups while maintaining the competitiveness of the UK corporation tax regime.
The CFC rules are designed to protect the UK corporate tax base from the artificial diversion of UK profits to low-tax jurisdictions. The rules were extensively reformed in 2012 during the previous Parliament as part of the corporate tax road map, which provided the protection necessary for a more territorial corporate tax base while ensuring that the rules operate in a way that reflects modern global business practices.
A CFC charge arises on a UK company in relation to CFC profits that have been diverted from the UK. Under the CFC rules, UK losses and other surplus expenses could be set against profits taxable under the CFC rules, which can reduce or eliminate the amount of UK tax actually paid on those diverted profits. The Government believe that tax should be paid on profits diverted from the UK. These changes will ensure that that happens.
The changes made by clauses 35 and 36 will remove the ability of a UK company to reduce or eliminate its CFC charge by offsetting UK losses and surplus expenses against that CFC charge, which will improve the effectiveness of the CFC regime in deterring the diversion of profits from the UK by ensuring that those profits are taxed. The changes made by clauses 35 and 36 apply to corporate entities, not individuals. They will apply with effect from 8 July 2015 to UK-resident companies that hold an interest in a CFC on which a CFC charge will arise. The changes will mainly affect large UK multinational groups with overseas subsidiaries. The changes will raise an estimated £860 million in additional tax receipts over the next six years.
The reform of the CFC rules in 2012 was an important part of corporation tax reform. These clauses ensure that the CFC rules work as intended by preventing UK losses or other surplus expenses from reducing or eliminating the amount of UK tax paid on diverted UK profits. The changes are in line with our broader corporate tax policy objectives, which seek to balance competitiveness and fairness.
Rob Marris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I do not think I have had the pleasure since taking a five-year sabbatical.
Rob Marris
I will endeavour to conduct myself in a way that produces that result.
I wish I had thought of clauses 35 and 36 myself. They contain great anti-avoidance provisions, for which I again salute the Government. I understand that they seek to ensure that the CFC legislation operates as intended. There is one sting in the tail—I may have misunderstood—but clause 35 addresses loopholes that have been exploited since the introduction of provisions in the Finance Act 2012. That does not instil great confidence in the creation, drafting and passage of that legislation. The more so with clause 36, which—again, I may be mistaken—attempts to close a loophole or dissuade companies from a course of conduct with their tax affairs pursuant to rules that were introduced by the Finance Act 2015. If that be the case, I am concerned that the House is repeatedly battling against aggressive tax avoiders. If it be the case that we are amending legislation introduced about six months ago to close a loophole, we are not doing as well as we should be and might be on countering the actions of aggressive tax-avoiding companies, which is a goal shared on both sides of the House. Although the different ways one might do that may be the subject of debate, the goal that companies should pay their fair share of tax is a shared goal. Again, we can debate what is a fair share of tax, but loopholes appear to be popping up all over the place at very short notice, which is a concern.
Mr Gauke
I again thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting the content of these clauses. I have general and specific points to make in response to his comments. He is right that there is a consensus across the House that aggressive tax avoidance should be tackled. Although he was on sabbatical for the previous Parliament, he will be aware that measures designed to deal with that matter were brought forward in the previous Parliament. A lot of the work that needed to be done in the context of large multinationals is essentially of a multilateral, international nature, and we have pursued that agenda through the BEPS project, which I mentioned a moment ago, so there has been a determination on that front.
We brought in measures over the previous Parliament, as have previous Governments, to address what could be described as loopholes in domestic legislation. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has also been very effective in collecting more tax from large businesses. The position of tax administration at HMRC has ensured that those revenues are collected.
If I were to argue against the provisions for a moment, I could say that a UK company can set its losses against UK profits, so why can it not also set its losses against profits that have been diverted from the UK? We are not persuaded by that argument, hence the measures in front of us. The provisions are consistent with our wider policy of protecting our corporation tax base against the diversion of UK profits, which is consistent with our approach to the diverted profits tax, for example. It is right to take action, but it is also right to ensure that we get the balance right between fairness and competitiveness. As evidence has emerged of particular practices that companies pursue, it is right to make adjustments as and where necessary ensure that legislation reflects those twin objectives of fairness and competitiveness.
Rob Marris
Can the Minister indicate when the Government will push forward hard on what they have said that they will do on transparency of beneficial ownership of companies in tax havens and so on? Anecdotally, there is quite some evidence of tax avoidance, which the introduction of that transparency could lessen. The Opposition want it and the Government say they want it, but it appears to be slow in coming.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman takes me into wider matters, but I am happy to respond even though it takes me a little way from clauses 35 and 36. The UK is leading the way by introducing a central register of beneficial ownership. That issue relates more to tax evasion as opposed to tax avoidance. We are encouraging other jurisdictions, including overseas territories and Crown dependencies, to move in the same direction as the UK.
On the subject of transparency and tax avoidance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the earlier recommendations from the BEPS project was on the introduction of county-by-country reporting information that goes to tax authorities. To ensure that we made progress on that front, we debated it before the conference recess. Such a measure would be more helpful and beneficial to tax authorities than a different arrangement. They could more easily assess a multinational’s tax affairs around the world and understand whether significant profits located in a low-tax jurisdiction might be indicative of a need for a closer look at the tax affairs of that multinational company.
Returning to the clauses before us, the hon. Gentleman referred to the interaction with the loss restriction rules that were introduced in a previous Finance Bill this year. The measure amends the rules restricting the use of carried forward losses introduced in the Finance Act 2015 to put it beyond doubt that those rules apply to arrangements involving CFCs. The measure is in addition to and, I would argue, complementary and consistent with the previous legislation. It puts it beyond doubt that that anti-avoidance measure applies to CFCs.
I hope those points are helpful to the Committee. We are determined to ensure that the UK is a competitive place in which to do business. The reforms of the CFC regime that we introduced in the last Parliament have helped the UK to attract additional business and more headquarters have been located in the UK. It is also right to ensure that those reforms do not go beyond what we intended and leave open opportunities for tax avoidance. The clauses are evidence of our determination to address that matter and I hope they will stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Seventh sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Order. Welcome to our continued line-by-line scrutiny of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. We have some new Committee members at our proceedings—a warm welcome to you.
Before we begin proceedings, I wish to clarify the procedure on combining questions before the Committee. The usual practice is that, with the leave of the Committee, successive questions on which the Committee agrees—for example, a series of non-contentious amendments—can be combined and taken as one question. However, that does not apply if Members want to divide on the amendments. If the Committee wants to vote on a particular amendment or series of amendments, the questions will have to be put separately and individual Divisions held for each question.
I understand that in my absence at the last sitting you were all very naughty. That is trying to put things right. I hope it is clear and helpful to Committee members in today’s proceedings.
Clause 11
Changes to child tax credit
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 11, page 12, line 39, leave out “2017” and insert “2022”.
This amendment would see current arrangements for child tax credit remaining in place for children born before 6 April 2022.
I hope Committee members have all had an enjoyable recess and a successful conference. Unfortunately, the Scottish National party has to juggle a week of Bill Committees and conference, so the week will no doubt be a busy one for us.
From the outset I want to make it clear that the SNP wholeheartedly condemns the intentions behind the clause, which will exclude many of the poorest children in society from the support of our social security system, against the very principles on which that system was set up. The two-child policy, which has been much discussed, will affect more than 872,000 families who receive support for third and subsequent children. I cannot understand how anyone in Committee could say that that was fair, just or necessary.
The stark reality is that the Government’s national child poverty strategy recognises that the risk of poverty is much more significant in larger families than in smaller ones. A third of the children living in poverty live in families with three or more children. Perhaps it is for that reason that the Government are seeking to airbrush child poverty from the statute books. It is easy for the Government to come in with a clean page, to spout theories without evidence and to claim that reducing financial support to only two children will make poorer families rethink their financial choices, but that is based on the falsehood that all children are planned and that it is possible to plan financially for children. As I am sure we all know, that is not possible.
What if someone’s second pregnancy turns out to be twins, or even triplets? We still have no real clarity on how multiple births will be treated. Will the Minister concede that such eventualities simply cannot be planned for? Perhaps he needs a biology lesson. Are we telling families to stop having children just in case? The scenarios are not that simple.
I have raised many times in Committee and on the Floor of the House, as have my SNP colleagues, the very sensitive issue of children resulting from rape and the even more insensitive plan of the Minister and the Government to make women justify their children in front of a caseworker from the Department for Work and Pensions. Many organisations have stated clearly that their staff have to train for a considerable amount of time to support women who have been raped, so I cannot understand how the Government’s proposed system and policy will work.
I therefore ask, clearly and specifically, for the Minister to keep in place the existing arrangements for children born before 2022 and to tell the Committee, before we vote on the amendment, exactly what his Department’s plans are for that. We all have to deal with constituency cases, but I am interested to know how any Government Members would deal with a woman coming to them who cannot seek benefit because she has been raped and therefore has to justify herself to the DWP. Even in evidence to the Committee, stakeholders described the policy as “unpalatable”. Does it simply show, at the height of Tory insensitivity, how out of touch the party is with reality? My view and that of my colleagues is that the Government have simply not thought things through.
When the Minister responds, will he tell me just how a woman would prove that her child was a result of rape? We all know the difficulties involved in securing a criminal conviction in that respect, as well as the high burden of proof, never mind the devastating emotional impact on the victim. What exactly will be the Government’s standard? Why did the Minister, and the Conservatives generally, think it appropriate to include the issue? The policy will ultimately result in a complete abuse of rape victims’ privacy, leading to serious emotional damage of the child should he or she become aware through the social security system that they are the result of rape. Imagine someone finding that out purely because their parents seek benefits.
Let me be clear: discussing this matter is not something I do lightly, but the SNP feels, as I hope others on the Opposition side of the Committee feel, that we must speak up. Amendment 44 would kick the policy into the long grass. Even campaigners Women Against Rape have called the policy “disgusting”, saying it will have “appalling consequences”. The SNP stands firm with that position and urges the Government to remove the two-child policy from child tax credit and universal credit provisions to ensure that no victim or child should go through the torment associated with justifying a third child, given the horrific crime inflicted on them.
Given the current economic climate, families simply cannot plan for a third child, or subsequent children. What if their first or second child was the result of rape, and they went on to have further children, but their economic circumstances changed? The Government’s failure to secure a strong, thriving economy with stable employment opportunities means that, although the members of a family may have stable and reliable jobs, there is, as we have seen, no guarantee that someone who decides to have a child will be employed for the next 18 years. To deny assistance to families who fall on hard times completely flies in the face of what the welfare system was built for.
Working people will ask why they pay their taxes when they can no longer receive support in our social security system. Will they be made to feel that their third child was a bad choice because the company they worked for made them redundant? Does the Minister have an answer for the parents of twins or other children? Could he, or any Government member of the Committee, look into a constituent’s eyes and say with a clear conscience that that constituent’s bad financial planning means they deserve no support from the Government?
The provisions in the Bill are nothing more than a move to socially engineer society into a form the Tory Government have dreamt up—one where the right to have a third child is a luxury reserved for the rich. That is not a society that I, any of my colleagues or, I believe, anybody in this country wants to live in. That is why the SNP are standing up for the poor, for hard-working folk and for children. We want to protect them when they fall on challenging times.
Child Poverty Action Group research shows that many families in receipt of tax credits are already struggling to meet their children’s most basic needs. Current levels of entitlement cover only between 73% and 85% of the cost of raising a child. Removing tax credit entitlements will only widen that gap further. Ultimately, the provision in the Bill could sink more families below the breadline, leaving children at risk of ill health and lower educational attainment.
From the heart, and using my head, I can only urge all Members to unite with the SNP today and to think of the constituents who will come to them—those with three or more children and those struggling to get more hours at work to make ends meet. Members should think of what rejecting the policy will do for those people: they will be able to look their constituents in the eye and say they did everything they could to stop the policy. If we, as parliamentarians, are here to legislate for those we represent, let us legislate properly and with our consciences. The provisions in the Bill do not make good law, so I ask Members to please think again and vote with us.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to return to the Committee, Mr Streeter.
The two-child policy—there is a list of political regimes that begins with the Vietnamese communists and the Iranian theocrats—is not going to end well. We are debating a proposal that would see the current Administration join that inauspicious rank of people who at one time or other have imposed state-sanctioned limits on the number of children a family can have. Even the ayatollahs backed away from it in recent years.
Of course, there is a caveat in the Bill that adds a layer of unpleasantness to the proceedings. The Government will impose a limit on family size that applies only to poor families. At least the other countries tried to stop all families from having more children. This Government seem to focus only on the poor. They seem to be trying to limit the number of children that the poor have.
We are not all poor always. Some of us might begin life by being quite well off and comfortable and able to make decisions. We would know we could be completely confident that we could be independent, but then things happen. That is what the social security system has always been about. I speak from personal experience. My parents were allegedly, supposedly happily married. They had three children and then one day, when I was seven and my younger brother was five and my other brother was three, my father left—he left the country and abandoned us. I remember the bailiffs came round. They were wearing bowler hats—this was the ’60s—and they threw us out of our house. We had nowhere to go and we had no money and the welfare state picked us up and gave us accommodation. They gave us a house. Nobody said, “How many children have you got? You’ve been very reckless, Mrs Thornberry, I’m sorry we can’t give you any money for the third child. Young Ben Thornberry is going to have to starve.” There was none of that thinking. It was tough, but we were looked after. Nobody looked down on my mother for having made a decision with my father to have three children. That was a long time ago, but I feel that that is the sort of Britain we ought to want to be involved in.
We ought to be able to have a Britain where we have a safety net that looks after people when they find themselves in difficult circumstances. We do not want to have a Government that tells people, “Now listen here, you look a bit rough round the edges. We don’t want you to have any more than two children. Lord knows what they will be like and you won’t even be able to look after them. Sorry, but no, that’s it.” Where will it end?
Frankly, this is an extraordinary piece of legislation. It is shockingly bad and it flies in the face of a British value of which I have always been very proud—that we look after the weakest and poorest and have a safety net. If things happen, people will not starve. We should not say, “I’m sorry, we are now in a world where people must make choices.” The third or fourth child does not make a choice to live. The third, fourth or fifth child is not to be blamed for their existence. The sixth child is not to have no shoes because of a reckless mother who cannot keep her legs crossed. It is not the sixth child’s fault that he is the sixth child. Why should he starve? How will it make a difference? What is the evidence that the Government want to put before us that will tell us that a change to the benefits system in that way will stop people having more children?
It is interesting that there is not going to be an equality impact assessment. The Government have learned their lesson. The last welfare Bill had 20 equality impact assessments, which the Opposition revelled in, as did all the people opposing that previous piece of pernicious legislation, because the assessments showed what the effect of welfare legislation would be. I may be quoting roughly—I will be corrected if I am wrong—but one of the equality impact statements produced for the previous Bill, which the Government have unfortunately not produced for this one, said that black and Asian families were three times as likely to have more than two children. It is interesting that the Government decided not to have an equality impact assessment on clause 11. Perhaps nobody will notice that the legislation affects black and Asian families that much more.
We all know whom the Bill will affect: women—black, Asian, white or whatever. Women will be adversely affected by the Bill and will struggle to work out how they are going to afford a pair of shoes that winter for the fourth child. Mr Streeter, you may be surprised to hear this, but yes, we are against this particularly nasty piece of legislation. I do not know at this point if you wish me to speak to new clauses 5 and 6.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The amendment seeks to delay the Government’s proposed changes to the family element of child tax credit until April 2022. The Government were elected on a mandate to reduce the deficit and restore order to our public finances. As part of the plan to get us into surplus and to continue the progress made in the previous Parliament, the Government have committed to making a further £12 billion of welfare savings.
To set the scene, the most recent statistics show that, in 2011, the level of UK expenditure on family benefits was the second highest out of the 34 countries in the OECD and almost double the average. Child tax credits are there, of course, to provide support to low-income families to help them with the costs of raising children.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify those figures? Are they in terms of percentage of spend to GDP or absolute figures?
Damian Hinds
The OECD has done a survey based on percentage of spend to GDP. The hon. Lady has not asked this question but let me clarify further: it takes together family benefits, cash benefits, tax breaks and childcare. Of course, the mix is different in different countries. Nordic countries tend to spend more on direct childcare and Anglophone countries tend to spend less on that but put more into tax breaks. Our country has tended to spend a little bit more on cash benefits and on childcare.
As I said, child tax credits are there to provide support to low-income families to help them with the cost of raising children, but the system has grown unsustainably—a family with three children that earns up to almost £40,000 could still be eligible for some support. The previous Labour Government let public spending on tax credits rocket out of control so that, in 2010, nine out of 10 families with children were eligible for tax credits. That was not targeted support for low-income families.
Emily Thornberry
Does the Minister agree that we have in this country a unique system that in fact helped us to weather the international storm caused, not by Gordon Brown being at Lehman Brothers throwing dollar bills out the back window, but by an international financial crisis, and that we did not have higher levels of unemployment because measures such as in-work benefits meant that people could continue to work and employers did not feel the need to continue put up wages because they felt that it was easier to continue to employ people? Does he agree that in-work benefits have resulted in people remaining in work?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady tempts me into a wider debate about the deficit, which would be interesting to get into, particularly with some of the news this morning about her own party’s interesting deliberations on how the deficit should be dealt with. I do not think that anybody denies that there was an international financial crisis in 2007-08, but it is also true—I doubt that many people will deny it, though she may be one who does—that it came on top of a structural budget deficit that was out of control because we had spent too much and borrowed too much, even in the good years.
The Chair
It is interesting, but it is not strictly to do with amendment 44. I am sure the Minister is about to return directly to it.
Damian Hinds
I fell into the temptation of the wider debate, but I will now get away from it. However, the existence of the structural deficit and the continuing problems that we find ourselves in post 2007-08 are why we need to get our public finances back into order.
Nobody would deny the existence of automatic stabilisers, as the hon. Lady mentioned, but we need a welfare system, a benefits system and general public finances that are sustainable and fair to all people—those who pay in and those who are beneficiaries. Despite reforms in the previous Parliament reducing the number of families eligible for tax credits to six out of 10, the current level of spending on tax credits is unsustainable.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Damian Hinds
I think I ought to make some progress. [Interruption.] Oh, go on then.
Neil Coyle
I am glad that my disappointed face worked on this occasion.
Although the suggestion that the change is about balancing the books is fine on one level, the Minister has had specific requests for information about families who will not feel that they are personally responsible for the national economic position. We heard from the hon. Member for Livingston about incidents of rape, and we have heard a discussion about the equality impact assessment. I would like the Minister to address the concerns of people of faith who do not believe in contraception. Will they be subject to the cap?
We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a big fan of China, but even in China, with its single child policy, there is flexibility within the system to allow people from minority ethnic communities to have more than one child, to allow people from farming and rural communities to have more than one child—
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be brief. I sounds like the hon. Gentleman perhaps missed his opportunity to make a speech in this debate. He has made his point, and I am sure that the Minister will give way for a further intervention if he wishes.
Damian Hinds
Thank you, Mr Streeter.
Let me be clear, lest there be any doubt, that this is not about limiting the number of children that people have. It is about financial support in the form of child tax credit. Child benefit, for example, will continue to go up in line with the number of children. The hon. Gentleman says, and he is right, that individual families are not responsible for the financial mess that our country found itself in as a result of the unholy combination of the financial crisis and the previous Labour Government. That is correct, but we do have a shared future, and it is the responsibility of a Government, on behalf of all their citizens, particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, to make sure that we have sound finances, that we can continue to afford to pay for our public services, that we can continue to afford to invest in our national health service and that we can give people the support that they need.
Damian Hinds
I think I will have to move on a little.
Last year the Government spent almost £30 billion on tax credits—more than three and a half times what we spent on military personnel. That level of spending on tax credits is unfair on those who foot the bill, who are, of course, other taxpayers. That is why the Government took steps in the summer Budget to put tax credit spending on a more—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley want to intervene?
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Yes, I do; I just want to point out that people who are on tax credits are in work. They are taxpayers, and they are therefore paying that bill. The Minister should not pitch two sets of people against each other. He should recognise that people who get tax credits work.
Damian Hinds
I do not know whether the hon. Lady deliberately did not hear me say that. I did say that people who pay the tax credit uplift are other taxpayers. That is true. That is not pitching one person against another, it is just a statement of the reality, a statement of how the system works. That is why the Government took steps—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady want to intervene again? She keeps on speaking.
Jess Phillips
I am more than happy to do so. The Minister is being extremely divisive. What he actually said was that the person footing the bill was basically someone else. The Government are basically trying to make some people feel that they are being robbed for the sake of the poor. When I lived on tax credits, I worked probably about a 14-hour day. I will not have it said of people such as me and my hon. Friends that we were beholden to someone else. We were taxpayers.
Damian Hinds
I do not recall referring to the hon. Lady’s specific case or the case of anybody else on the Opposition Benches. Nor did I say that anybody should feel bad for supporting others, but there is a case for balance. It is just a statement of fact that, in any tax and benefits system, benefits paid to one group or person have to be paid for by others, and we have to make sure that that system is fair.
As the hon. Lady will recall, we had a great reforming Budget with a set of measures to move us from a low-wage, high-tax, high-welfare society to a lower-tax, higher-wage, less welfare-reliant society, including measures such as the national living wage, with which we seek permanently to reform the structure of the economy and the way the system works.
Damian Hinds
I will give way one last time to the hon. Lady, and then I must progress.
Hannah Bardell
On the point that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury made about families in work who are on tax credits, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—which the Government have quoted on a number of occasions—has said that the increase in the minimum wage, which is not a true living wage, will not compensate for the cuts that are coming to tax credits, which will hit the poorest hardest and is a regressive policy. What does the Minister say to the IFS?
Damian Hinds
I say that these are major structural changes. I think you would admonish me, Mr Streeter, if I went too far down this road, because we had this debate on the Floor of the House and there will be other opportunities to discuss the matter.
We are talking about helping people through the national living wage and increases in the income tax personal allowance, but also through measures such as childcare support and, most important of all, the general strength of the economy. We see real wages rising very strongly at the moment, and we have very low inflation and very strong economic growth. Those are the things that most help families with their budgets and living standards.
In the summer Budget, the Government took steps to put tax credit spending on a more sustainable path, including by limiting the individual element of child tax credit to two children and by removing the family element of child tax credit for those who are not responsible for a child or qualifying young person before 6 April 2017. The average family size in this country has decreased over recent decades. The average number of dependent children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7.
Damian Hinds
I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
The Government believe that it is fair and proportionate to limit support through tax credits and universal credit to two children per family. The measures in clause 11 will ensure that there is greater fairness between those receiving benefits and those paying for them, and will ensure that, in the future, families in receipt of benefits face the same sorts of financial decisions when they consider having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. The Government decided to implement the measures from April 2017 to give families time to make decisions about having more children. That provides sufficient time for those considering whether to have more children to make plans, while at the same time putting tax credits on a more sustainable footing.
The hon. Member for Livingston quite rightly raised some of the difficult issues. We have already been clear about multiple births, and there will be more detail forthcoming on that. We will also have a chance discuss that in debates on further amendments. The Government have been absolutely clear that if parents have twins or triplets and previously there were fewer than two children in the household, that will be treated as a single birth. In the most difficult circumstance—a child conceived as a result of rape—it is right that the Government take a careful and sensitive approach to working out how best to deal with those circumstances and support women through that situation in relation to the tax credit system. There will be more detail in due course.
Hannah Bardell
Should the Government not have thought that through before they put the policy in place?
Damian Hinds
It is not at all uncommon for a Government to say that particular aspects of the implementation of a policy are delicate and sensitive and require careful thought with external stakeholders who are experts in the field. That is what will happen in this case. I do not feel the need to defend that. It is the right thing to do because there are people who have expertise, and it is absolutely right that they should have the opportunity to be consulted.
Damian Hinds
I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
The Government will continue to support larger families through child benefit, which is paid for all qualifying children in a household. There are 15 hours of childcare available to the 40% least advantaged families. Families will continue to receive 15 hours a week of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds, and the Government have announced that from September 2017 that will be extended to 30 hours for parents who are in work. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Livingston to withdraw the amendment.
Hannah Bardell
I will be brief, because I and my colleagues covered the points in our initial remarks. From what the Minister has said, it is clear that there was no consultation and consideration on the most serious parts of the Bill, including the issue of the third child and the matter of rape. We have no details, and many organisations have said that those provisions were a great surprise to them.
I cannot believe that a Government would be so insensitive as to put a clause such as this one in a Bill. On the day of the Budget, when the policy was announced and we saw it in black and white, it seemed like an afterthought. To treat people as an afterthought—particularly women who are vulnerable and who have been raped—is nothing short of a disgrace.
The IFS has been very clear that the Budget and these policies will hit the poorest in society hardest. In Scotland, the Daily Record recently reported that the
“poorest households could be more than £500 a year worse off in 2020 as a result of changes made in Chancellor George Osborne’s budget...800,000 households north of the border will have less cash as a result”,
and that the
“IPPR Scotland think-tank found there would be more winners than losers, with some 1.3 million households expected to be better off. But while the richest 20 per cent of households will gain £110 a year by...2020/21, the impact of tax and benefit changes on the poorest 20 per cent of households will see them lose an average of £520 a year.”
Getting our finances into a surplus cannot come at the cost of people’s lives, including children’s lives, and at the cost of making the poorest even poorer.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 11, page 13, line 10, leave out “one other child” and insert “two other children”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to child tax credit for families with three children.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in clause 11, page 13, line 10, leave out “one other child” and insert “three other children”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to child tax credit for families with four children.
Amendment 47, in clause 11, page 13, line 10, leave out “one other child” and insert “four other children”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to child tax credit for families with five children.
Amendment 48, in clause 11, page 13, line 10, leave out “one other child” and insert “five other children”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to child tax credit for families with six children.
Amendment 50, in clause 12, page 13, line 18, leave out subsections (1) to (4).
This amendment would retain entitlement to the child element of universal credit for families with more than two children.
Amendment 51, in clause 12, page 13, line 22, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to the child element of universal credit for families with three children.
Amendment 52, in clause 12, page 13, line 22, leave out “two” and insert “four”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to the child element of universal credit for families with four children.
Amendment 53, in clause 12, page 13, line 22, leave out “two” and insert “five”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to the child element of universal credit for families with five children.
Amendment 54, in clause 12, page 13, line 22, leave out “two” and insert “six”.
This amendment would retain entitlement to the child element of universal credit for families with six children.
New clause 5—Entitlement to housing benefit—
‘(1) Section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (Appropriate maximum housing benefit), is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Entitlement to housing benefit shall not be restricted in respect of a maximum number of children or qualifying young persons for whom a claimant is responsible.”’
To prevent the Secretary of State from limiting entitlement to housing benefit by taking into account only a certain number of children in a family.
New clause 6—Entitlement to housing costs under Universal Credit—
‘(1) Section 11 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 (Housing costs), is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) Entitlement to an amount under this section shall not be restricted in respect of a maximum number of children or qualifying young persons for whom a claimant is responsible.”’
To prevent the Secretary of State from limiting entitlement to housing costs under Universal Credit by taking into account only a certain number of children in a family.
I will allow a wide-ranging discussion on this group of amendments.
Corri Wilson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Streeter, on another full day of scrutiny on a Bill that is about neither welfare nor work. It serves only to make some of the most vulnerable in society worse off. As I speak to amendment 45 and the other amendments in this group, I am going to raise some of the issues that I find most absurd about the Bill.
I was, as may be expected, disheartened to see the Committee reject amendment 44. It was, however, not a surprise that Government Members would oppose the plan to keep the family element of child tax credit for at least another five years. For that reason, the Scottish National party is looking to protect larger families through this series of amendments. We tabled each of the amendments because protection needs to be afforded to all families, large or small. Families include children, and the policies in the Bill will affect young children. That is why my party opposes the Bill in its entirety.
Emily Thornberry
I should like to speak to new clauses 5 and 6 in particular, which are grouped with the amendments. New clause 5 would prevent the Secretary of State from limiting entitlement to housing benefit based on family size, and new clause 6 would do a similar job with universal credit. There is no mention in the Bill of limiting housing benefit on the basis of family size. That is odd. It is a radical proposal, it is pernicious, it needs scrutinising and it is not there, but we are told that it is coming. The Red Book mentions that there will be a limit on tax credits to a maximum of two children and then states, on page 38:
“An equivalent change will be made in Housing Benefit to ensure consistency between both benefits.”
It is coming—it is linked with the limits on tax credits—but the Government have not yet told us about it. We therefore want to pre-empt that and have a discussion now, putting in our new clauses.
Another removal of money from poor families is the getting rid of what is called the family premium. The premium is an acceptance that families are expensive and that a working family ought to have more of its income disregarded when assessing entitlement to housing benefit. On getting rid of the family premium, Shelter has said:
“Exploiting the complexity of housing benefit and tinkering with means tests and tapers is a clever ruse to extract savings from housing benefit in a technical way that doesn’t attract attention in the way that big, visible cuts like the bedroom tax did.”
Well, we have noticed.
If the Government get their way, they will be abolishing the family premium for housing benefit. That means that families—working families—will have £17.45 a week in earnings held against them when a decision is being made on whether they can get help with their housing costs. I do not know what the Government intend. Do they think that families are not expensive these days? Do they believe that the contribution of working families to the Osborne economic miracle by way of the cuts to tax credits is not enough, so the family premium ought to be cut as well? I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us.
May I go back to limiting housing benefit to two children and how that will work? As I have said, the Government have stated their intention. I have a few questions because I do not understand it. Perhaps no such provision is included in the Bill because the policy has not been thought through yet. We might be being helpful to the Government if we raise some of the likely problems if they place a two-child limit on housing benefit. For example, will local authorities presented with a homeless family with four children be obliged to house them in housing that means that they are not statutorily overcrowded? If so, and the family is not working and the property is a local authority one, will anyone pay the rent? Will the Government pay rent only for two bedrooms and the other two bedrooms will not be paid? Or will the family be expected to pay the rent out of the child benefit?
The Minister repeated today that child benefit is not affected by the reforms, because the Government want to ensure a fair start in life for children in all families. That is certainly part of the Tory script at the moment, but it is not true—we have a script alert here for my hon. Friends. The irony is that there is an enormous difference between the level of support provided through child benefit, which is subject to a four-year freeze, and that provided by tax credits. For a third child, a family can claim £712.40 a year, compared with £2,780 in tax credits.
The Government say of such families, “Don’t worry, they are still getting child benefit. They’ll be fine.” They will not be fine. In particular, families will not be fine if there are no tax credits for the third child and housing benefit is being taken away. The Government are therefore presumably expecting parents to pay for their rent out of—I do not know—jobseeker’s allowance, child benefit or something. How will that work? Will people simply have to end up living in cars, because that must be what the Government’s policy is about?
How will the Government assess whether they are giving housing benefit to a family with only two children, as opposed to three? Would they expect families possibly to split up, so that two children live with a parent at one address and two with another parent at another address? Housing benefit for four children could be paid in that way. Or would that be wrong? Given that there is a housing crisis in London, I cannot see how that would work because there is not enough accommodation for all the families as it is. In my constituency, I have 19,000 families waiting for accommodation. If the Government are to restrict housing benefit for larger families, where will they go? I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to what might happen.
The Government have not put that measure in the Bill, which may be because they have not really worked out what they mean, how it will work and what the impact will be on homelessness and the number of people living in cars. If they have not worked that out, perhaps that is a good reason for them not putting it in the Bill yet. I applaud them for that. Of course, there is another possibility: they want to slip the provision into a statutory instrument. If they put it into a statutory instrument, they do not need to have any impact assessment—heaven forbid they have an equality impact assessment! We know they will not have an assessment, so we will not know how much money, if any, will be saved, who will be affected, how much more homelessness or how much more child poverty it will cause. That is why we want to have a debate now, so that the Government are given the opportunity to tell us their thoughts and enlighten us, and so that we can explain to them why that is one of the more horrible aspects of their so-called welfare reform and something that will have a devastating effect.
I should bring up another point—I forgot to raise it earlier and I apologise for the illogical order, but it is important. The Government have said that they will abolish the family premium a full year before the introduction of restrictions to child tax credit. I wonder why. Will the Minister say why they are doing that? They will restrict child tax credit but will take away the family premium a year early. The Government say that the measure will apply to new claims but have not made clear what it will mean in practice. For example, would a family moving into a new area, perhaps as a result of the Government’s welfare reforms, be treated as making a new claim if an existing housing benefit was simply transferred from one local authority to another? Will the Minister help us with that? The proposals to restrict entitlement to housing benefit are not included in the Bill and, as I have said, we have not had any details on how the restriction will work in practice. The Minister has quite a lot of explaining to do.
Entitlement to housing benefit is currently calculated on the basis of the number of rooms a family needs, as we know. Children under 10 are expected to share a room, for example, with a single mother. A single mother with four young children would be entitled to claim housing benefit for a three-bedroom property. Are the Government proposing that she should be entitled only to a two-bedroom property? Indeed, are the Government expecting to change the law on overcrowding in order to accommodate those larger families who do not have the money to pay rent on a decent-sized property? It would be very helpful to hear from the Government on those points.
Damian Hinds
The amendments serve a similar purpose: to increase, or indeed remove, the limit on the number of children or qualifying young people in respect of which a person is entitled to the individual element of child tax credit or the child element of universal credit, and to prevent limits being placed on the number of children for the purposes of calculating housing benefit or the housing costs element of universal credit.
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments. Despite the progress we have made towards reducing the deficit since 2010, we still ran a budget deficit of 4.9% last year and are expected to have the second highest deficit in the G7 in 2015. That is why it is important, indeed imperative, to get welfare spending under control, to help us get into surplus so that we can continue to increase our investment in our NHS, schools and pensions. As I have already mentioned, tax credit expenditure more than trebled in real terms between 1999 and 2010 and cost the taxpayer just under £30 billion last year.
Emily Thornberry
I wondered how much money the Government might save if they did not introduce their changes to inheritance tax?
Damian Hinds
Today’s debate is not about inheritance tax. If the hon. Lady is making a point about fairness in the tax system, that would be a fair question to ask. In fact, if we look at the overall package of what the Government have done in tax and spending since 2010, we see that the distribution of spending between different income groups and society has stayed pretty much the same.
Damian Hinds
Yes, indeed it has, and the incidence of taxation has shifted up the income scale so that the top fifth is now paying proportionately more than they were, and the top 1% who were paying 25% of income tax in 2010—[Interruption.] The Opposition can shake their heads all they like and say it is not proportionate, but it is proportionate. That is exactly the point. The top 1% who were already paying 25% income tax in 2010 are paying—
The Chair
Order. I think this could go on for a while, but I am afraid that it is not directly relevant to the amendment and the Minister’s response to the amendment. I should not have allowed the intervention to take the Minister down a different path. Let us continue with amendment 45.
Damian Hinds
The fault was all mine, Mr Streeter. I do not blame the hon. Lady and I apologise for my part in it. The last thing I was going to say was 27.5%.
The level of spending we have reached on tax credits—£30 billion—is unsustainable and carries a risk to our public services. That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that the system is fair to those who pay for it as well as those who benefit from it. That is why the Government are limiting support to two children in child tax credit and universal credit from April 2017.
Amendments 45 to 48 and 50 to 54 would increase or remove the limit on the number of children or qualifying young people in respect of whom a person is entitled to the individual element of child tax credit or the child element of universal credit. If that policy were to protect six children in each household in terms of the payments or remove the limit completely, as suggested by SNP Members, there would be negligible savings from the measure and it would undermine our commitment to deficit reduction. It would also continue the unfairness that an out of work family with six children could receive over £17,000 per year in child tax credit in addition to other benefits if they are not subject to the benefit cap, while many working families would not see their budgets rise by anything like that when they have more children.
Damian Hinds
I am going to press on for the moment. The average number of children in families in the UK in 2012 was 1.7. The Government therefore think it is fair and proportionate to limit support through tax credits and universal credit to the payments for two children. To give families time to prepare, the change will not come into effect until April 2017. In child tax credit, the change will affect families who have a third or subsequent child born on or after 6 April 2017 only. In universal credit, the change applies to any third or subsequent children born, or joining the household, on or after 6 April 2017 and to families making a completely new claim to universal credit after that date.
Jess Phillips
I want some clarity on whether the measure relates to children born after that date or a new claim for a child after that date. What if my children were born in 2005 and 2010 and I do not currently need tax credits—who knows what the future will hold?—but need to claim them later? What if I need to go back on to tax credits after having a third child? Would my children count because they were born before or is it the claim that counts?
Damian Hinds
I believe we will have an opportunity at a subsequent stage to debate that point in detail in relation to a subsequent amendment, but I do not want to keep the hon. Lady waiting. To be clear in simple terms, the tax credit system is for new births after April 2017; universal credit is for new births and for new claims. Of course, universal credit is replacing the tax credit system. When we talk about new claims, that is with a gap of six months. It may apply to someone who has never been in that system before or in the predecessor tax credit system, or who has been out of both systems for a period of six months.
Damian Hinds
I do not want to pre-empt the more interesting discussion we may have later, but on the grounds that the intervention is relevant, as always, I give way.
Neil Coyle
As universal credit is rolled out, will the Minister provide families with a time machine so that they can go back and not have children?
Damian Hinds
I fear that that is another invitation to err from the path of the rightful debate.
On new clause 5, the intention seems to be to amend section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 to prevent the Secretary of State from making changes to housing benefit that would restrict the number of children who can be included in the housing benefit assessment. Housing benefit and the housing element in universal credit take into account the number of children for whom the claimant is responsible. There is no maximum number attached to that, and the Bill does not introduce one.
The only related changes to housing benefit, which will follow in regulations, are to ensure that a claimant’s housing benefit award is no higher than it would have been if the tax credit changes were not introduced. Obviously, without those changes, the tax credit change would have the unintended effect of awarding claimants with more than two children a higher amount of housing benefit, which would reduce the savings from the tax credit change.
Let me be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury raised some very reasonable questions, which we need to address directly. As she knows, housing benefit is made up of a number of elements. That includes taking into account the number of children in calculating the family’s income. The family premium she mentioned is part of that calculation. The changes will affect the calculation of family income, but not the number of rooms allocated, which is a separate issue.
Emily Thornberry
I do not think that I have quite understood—it is my being slow, and I know he is trying to be helpful. The number of rooms allocated will be down to whether the local authority has accommodation available or access to private sector accommodation. It will also be a matter of need. However, the local authority will not be able to rent a larger property to a larger family if there is not enough housing benefit to cover that. What I really did not understand—I am so sorry, and I may understand it when it read it—is whether the Government will restrict housing benefit to larger families and say, “You may be a six-person family, but we are not going to give you enough money to rent a four-bedroom property”?
Damian Hinds
The change in the regulations will ensure that, for families with more than two children, housing benefit does not rise to offset the notional loss in tax credit or universal credit, because the amount saved in tax credit would then reappear in housing benefit.
Let me move on to new clause 6, which is related. The housing cost element in universal credit is an additional amount paid to a claimant to cover the costs of the accommodation they occupy as their home. The new clause seeks to amend section 11 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 by making it clear that the Secretary of State will have no power to make regulations limiting the amount of the housing costs element based on the number of children living in the home.
In calculating the amount of a renter’s housing element under the universal credit regulations, a determination is, as the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said, made as to the category of accommodation it is reasonable for the renter to occupy, having regard to the number of people in the household. Claimants in rented accommodation are currently entitled to one bedroom for each qualifying young person for whom they are responsible; one bedroom for two children who are under 10 years old; one bedroom for two children of the same sex; and one bedroom for any other child. Additional rooms are available in certain other circumstances. The Bill does not make changes to matters such as the number of rooms the claimant’s family is allowed as part of the local housing allowance or removal of the spare room subsidy.
It is right that families on benefits should in future face the same financial considerations when deciding whether to have more children as families who support themselves solely through work. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press the provisions.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I might just need the time machine we heard about. I have three children, but if I was not in a job in five years’ time, after the next election, my youngest child would not qualify for a bedroom. Which one would the Minister like me to put into care?
Damian Hinds
In future, a different system will be in operation. It limits the cash support through the tax credit system to two children. It will continue to include child benefit, and it will also include enhanced child care. For example, we will be moving to 30 hours of free childcare for all three and four-year-olds and there will be further improvements in universal credit.
Damian Hinds
I think the hon. Lady’s point was about her child. I do not think she meant it as a direct question. [Interruption.] I am trying to explain that there will be a limit to the amount of financial support coming through the tax credit system according to the number of children, but there will be other elements still in place, and enhanced elements in relation to childcare. There will also be a further increase in the income tax personal allowance and a major structural reform in the labour market so that the tax credit system does not top up low wages. People will be paid properly for the job that they do via the national living wage, and we estimate that 65% of people who benefit from the national living wage will be women.
Corri Wilson
In tabling our amendments, the SNP seeks to lessen hardship in families. We want families, no matter how many children they have, to be able to access the child tax credit and child element of universal credit to allow children to have the best possible start. Life is complex and not quite as black and white as the Bill suggests. When my children were at school, I was a single parent and I worked full time. I wanted to work, but, without the tax credits, I could not have afforded to. Please do not cut this lifeline for people in a similar position today. We will press amendments 45 and 50 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Emily Thornberry
Mr Streeter, may I make it clear that new clauses 5 and 6—I should have said this earlier—were probing amendments?
The Chair
In any event, they would have been considered later, but it is helpful to know that.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 11, page 13, line 12, at end insert—
‘(3C) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young person for whom an individual element of child tax credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (3B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the child or qualifying young person in that household is disabled. This includes, but is not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disability element of child tax credit.’
The amendment exempts households from the limit on the number of children for whom the individual element of child tax credit can be claimed where one or more child in that household is disabled.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
‘(1B) The limit on the number of children or qualifying young person for whom a child element of universal credit can be claimed, as set out in subsection (1B), shall not apply to households where one or more of the child or qualifying young person in that household is disabled. This includes, but is not limited to, those persons in receipt of the disabled child element of universal credit.’
The amendment exempts households from the limit on the number of children for whom the child element of universal credit can be claimed where one or more child in that household is disabled.
New clause 16—Exemptions to changes in child tax credit and child element of universal credit—
‘(1) The limit on the number of children for which child tax credit or the child element of universal credit can be claimed, as provided for clauses 11 and 12 of this Act, do not apply in the following circumstances—
(a) where the number of children exceeds two because the third (or subsequent) child was part of a multiple birth at the same time as the second qualifying child;
(b) where a third (or subsequent) child becomes a member of a household as a result of being fostered or adopted into that household, or enters the household as the result of a kinship care arrangement;
(c) in exceptional circumstances as defined by the Social Security Advisory Committee, including but not limited to—
(i) the claimant becoming unemployed;
(ii) the death of one of the parents in the claimant household; and
(iii) one of the parents in the claimant household leaving the household following a breakdown in relationship.
(2) No limit shall apply to a household where any child or qualifying young person is disabled.
(3) No limit shall apply to couples with dependent children who if living in separate households would not be affected by the limit.
(4) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, establish an appeals process by which an individual can appeal a decision as to whether an exemption set out in this clause applies in their individual situation.’
Emily Thornberry
Amendment 83 exempts households from the limit on the number of children for whom the individual element of tax credits can be claimed where one or more of the children in the household is disabled. Amendment 84, which would amend clause 12, would carry the same requirement on to universal credit.
Any legislation that amends our current social security structure must have attached to its leg the aspirational legislation of universal credit, which I know that the Government hope will someday apply across the board. They have rolled it out for some of the simpler cases and they claim they will continue to roll it out, but we have been waiting for several years. However, we are told that it will happen, but we do not know when; it is not clear. We hear lots of stories about extraordinary overspends, computer systems that do not work and the Treasury tearing its hair out. We hear about all kinds of things going on behind the scenes, and we keep hearing that the implementation date has been pushed back. We will wait and see what happens. We appreciate that in the meantime we have to continue to produce two-legged administration with one leg in the current situation, and the second leg being the aspirational universal credit that at some stage in the future will apply to all of us. Good luck with it.
Jess Phillips
Has my hon. Friend read the piece in this morning’s Guardian about kinship carers also being badly affected? Specifically, some people are now not being able to take on the care of disabled children who for a number of reasons cannot be looked after by their parents, because of the changes to their financial assistance.
Emily Thornberry
Yes, indeed. From speaking to people who have spent many years devoted to this sector and who have tried to make our safety net as good as it possibly can be in difficult times, the attacks are coming from so many different angles, at so many different levels and so fast, that for many of us it is very difficult to know where to start. The changes are fundamental and very frightening. We know that what will happen in two or three years’ time will become manifest, and it will become increasingly obvious that the poor have got much poorer and that people have got much more desperate. That will affect children, and those born now will be disproportionately affected.
I hope that at that point, the Government will finally realise that, because I do not think that many of those on the Government Benches are heartless, but they have not thought this through. The difficulty is that their policy is based entirely on rhetoric. That is clear from some of the lines in their manifesto that are now appearing in proposed legislation. Look at the Childcare Bill, which says very little more than what was in the manifesto. The difficulty is that if you do not make policy on the basis of evidence but on the basis of rhetoric—what sounds right and what you think will work well with your focus groups—that will not work when it comes to ruling the country.
This is yet another ill-thought-out cut and change to the most vulnerable and most hard-working families, to the families in the most difficulty. Imagine spending time bringing up a child with disabilities and the continued worry of that. Those families have enough worry in terms of their child’s welfare without worrying about why the Government are taking away yet more funding and making life that much more difficult.
Hannah Bardell
It is a pleasure to speak again, Mr Streeter. I will keep my remarks brief and start by saying that we are more than happy to support Labour’s amendments. We offer that hand of friendship across the Benches as a form of compromise.
The amendments support the same policy intentions—although not quite as strongly—as our amendments that we have already discussed, so I will not go on too much. We support the intentions of protecting those who are fostering or adopting, households with disabled children and also, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned, kinship carers. That is something which the SNP in the Scottish Government have done a lot on in recent years. These are some of the most vulnerable children in society. We must do everything we can to protect them. Please, Minister, you must concede that we need to protect at least some of these children from the cuts. Will you back the advice of the Social Security Advisory Commission which said that there has to be a review? Will you take that into consideration in your closing remarks?
The Chair
Just before I call Debbie Abrahams, a number of colleagues have been using the word “you”, which of course refers to the Chair, when they really mean the hon. Gentleman or the Government. I say that to all my colleagues, both experienced and inexperienced. It is an easy mistake to make.
Debbie Abrahams
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak as the shadow Minister for Disabled People, so if you will allow me, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor and friend, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She did a fantastic job, not just in this Bill Committee but in the past in this role and her mantle is going to be hard to take up.
I want to add my voice to what my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has said. The tax credit provisions in the Bill are pernicious, and these elements are particularly callous and unjust. We are seeking to try to exempt families with disabled children from their impact.
Those who have spoken to parents and carers with disabled children will know that there are additional costs associated with raising disabled children. Contact A Family’s “Counting the Costs” report found that families with disabled children are more likely to be living in poverty than other families and that it costs three times as much to raise a disabled child. Families with disabled children face considerable additional expenditure on heating, housing, clothing, equipment and other items compared with other families. My youngest daughter was diagnosed with asthma when she was very little. One of the triggers for her was the cold and we had to have our heating on all day and all night when she was little to try and avoid what often happened, which was that she stopped breathing. I have that personal experience and, fortunately, we were able to cope with the financial costs of additional heating, but that is not the case for many families.
Research over many years demonstrates a strong relationship between low income, social exclusion and disability among families who have a disabled child. As the “Every Disabled Child Matters” campaign has said, childhood disability is frequently a trigger event for poverty, as a result of additional costs, family break-up and unemployment following the birth or diagnosis of a disabled child. As I said, disabled children are also at a high risk of poverty as a result of low household incomes. Many parents of disabled children are unable to work because of care responsibilities and the lack of, or the cost of, appropriate childcare. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to the issue of providing appropriate childcare for disabled people because, within the proposed provisions, the Government have not been particularly explicit about how that relates to disabled children.
Neil Coyle
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. The Minister has already mentioned a commitment to providing 30 hours of childcare, but at no point have the Government provided any information on how it will be assessed and whether parents can genuinely access that level of childcare, in particular the parents of disabled children. Would my hon. Friend welcome the Government clarifying whether childcare is genuinely accessible, particularly for parents of disabled children?
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it in his response.
Barriers to work are created by the stress of caring, often with no support. I am thinking again in the context of the £3.6 billion of cuts in social care, which also affect disabled people. When people do not have that support enabling them to work, it can build difficulties into family relationship. It is not clear in the impact assessment whether an assessment has been done on the likely increase in poverty of families with disabled children.
For example, what is the increase in NHS admissions predicted to be? I have mentioned my daughter who has asthma. The implication is that there will be other families in similar circumstances. Is there any prediction of an increase in family breakdown? We cannot be in a situation where, potentially, the Government are arguing that the measure will balance the books when it is really about cost-shunting from one Department to another. What assessment has been done on that?
We do not believe that disabled people, their families and their carers should be subject to further cuts and therefore seek to exempt households with one or more disabled children from the provisions on both child tax credit and universal credit. The Government and the social security system rightly recognise the additional costs of raising disabled children but the provisions in clauses 11 and 12 seem to be at odds with that. I oppose them absolutely and in their entirety. At the very least, the effect of the provisions should be mitigated for households with a disabled child and I urge all members of the Committee to do the right thing and support the amendments.
Emily Thornberry
Might I rise again? It is entirely my mistake but I realise that I spoke just to amendments 83 and 84 and not to new clause 16. Would it be convenient for me to do so now?
Emily Thornberry
I am sorry, Mr Streeter.
New clause 16 takes the issue of child tax credits and universal credit face on and raises some of the most difficult aspects of trying to restrict tax credits. It exposes some of the most serious flaws in the Government’s thinking. The Government’s rhetoric is constantly about choices, how people can shape their future by way of choices and how Governments can in some way affect people’s choices by changing tax credits. We say that that is simply not right. If we are wrong, will they show us some evidence? In fact, would they like to show us evidence that anyone has ever made a decision about how many children they are going to have on the basis of benefits? Do people really make a profit out of having a child? Do they have a child and then get more money than they actually need to spend on that child and rake it in thinking, “This is a good career,” or is it possible that that is nonsense and, that, in fact, the changes to tax credits are just about saving money, dressed up as some form of slightly extraordinary social policy?
The impact assessment states that the aim is to ensure that
“those on benefits face the same financial choices around the number of children they can afford as those supporting themselves through work.”
However, that creates a completely false distinction that seems to exist only in the minds of Tory Ministers. The fact is that almost two thirds of families with three or more children who claim tax credits are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has said, in work. The impact assessment may state that the aim is for financial choices for those who are out of work to be the same as for those who are in work, but let me say one more time to ensure that Ministers get it: people who claim tax credits are in work.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Lady’s points are very interesting. Does she agree that we also have to take cognisance of religious groups across the divide? In many cases, such as those of Catholics, who consciously do not use contraception—[Interruption]—these policies could well be an infringement of their human rights.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister says from a sedentary position that, in the 21st century, we should not pay attention to the Catholic view of contraception and decisions made within Catholic families. I am surprised. I say no more.
As I was saying, the Government have not provided details about what might be considered exceptional circumstances, so new clause 16 has suggested a few examples, such as multiple births, adoptions or kinship care arrangements. I recommend to the Minister an article in The Guardian today, written by Patrick Butler, about kinship adoption and related difficulties. One difficulty, among the many difficulties that people who put themselves forward to adopt children face, will be a potential cut in tax credits. If someone adopts a child who has a little brother, and the little brother then needs to go up for adoption, will that person say, “No, I can’t do it, because I can’t get the tax credits”? Are they really going to say that? Is that right? No, it is not, so will the Minister please do something about that, and will Government Members pay attention to our arguments and vote with us on new clause 16? It is entirely sensible and fleshes out the exceptional circumstances, which we think are glaring.
Those exceptional circumstances are: multiple births, adoptions, kinship care arrangements, relationship breakdowns, including, but not limited to, cases of domestic violence, and the death of a partner. The Minister says, “We are doing this in order to make sure that people make the correct choices.” I have spoken from my own personal circumstances. Frankly, my example is out of date, but unfortunately, in the last 40 or 50 years, these things have continued. People die unexpectedly and people leave unexpectedly. It is not as though someone can make a “bad choice”—in the Minister’s words—to have a third child and then take it back because their partner has died. That seems exceptionally harsh to us.
The new clause also proposes an exemption for those who become unemployed. The point here is to emphasise that, even if we accept the Government’s suggestion that families should make their family planning decisions based on the Government’s welfare reform legislation—that is a tall order in itself, although I suppose having to sit up and read the Government’s legislation on welfare reform might be some form of contraception—and even if the Government are right that people will realise welfare reform means it will be a bad idea for them to have a third child, people in work will not see that as relevant. They will make decisions because they can afford to have their children, but something may then happen, such as their becoming unemployed, and they will be hit that much harder. Therefore, even if the Government are right, which they are not, that people will make decisions on how big their family should be based on welfare reform, those people who are in work at the moment, making decisions frivolously to have four children, will find themselves in great difficulties if they suddenly become unemployed. That is unfair, as I am sure the Minister will recognise. We need to acknowledge the realities of life, particularly in the 21st century job market. People work in an insecure market. People can lose their jobs. Hopefully, they will get back into work, but it is unrealistic to expect parents to make decisions about their jobs and income with 100% certainty over an 18-year period. It is just not right. There are also abusive relationships. Women should not be expected to make decisions based on the possibility that they might become victims of domestic violence.
The new clause raises the serious issue of a couple’s penalty. Couples with more than two children will be given an incentive to separate just to continue receiving the support that they need to feed their children. That will happen. It is especially ironic that measures of child poverty are being replaced by measures of family breakdown, among other things. The Government are to measure child poverty on the basis of family breakdown, yet their social policy seems to pressure families into a form of breakdown so that they can continue to receive the benefits and tax credits that they need. The Tory party used to be the party of family and marriage. Why is its social policy dividing people? The irony is especially acute given the Secretary of State’s claim at the Conservative party conference that this Government’s reforms are
“all about making families stronger”.
Clearly, they are not.
Damian Hinds
I welcome the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth to her place in the Committee and, more broadly, to the Opposition Front Bench. She has a hard act to follow in the shape of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, but I know that she will execute her work absolutely admirably in this Committee and beyond. She and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury have spoken powerfully about the challenges faced by the parents of disabled children. I echo them in acknowledging the invaluable work that such parents and families do in difficult circumstances.
The Government are protecting benefits related to the additional costs of disability and care by exempting them from the freeze and from the cap that we discussed on another day. Those benefits include personal independence payments, disability living allowance and the support group component of employment and support allowance. Additionally, we will continue to increase those benefits by inflation. The Government are committed to supporting disabled children. We have reformed the special needs system to support children continuously from birth to the age of 25 and increased our spend on the main disability benefits by more than £2 billion over the course of the last Parliament. Overall, of course, we continue to spend about £50 billion on disability benefits and services each year.
My understanding is that amendments 83 and 84 would have the effect of removing households with one or more children with a disability from the two-child support limit policy in child tax credit and universal credit respectively. Thus, a family with five children, one of whom is disabled, would continue to receive child tax credit or universal credit in respect of all five children, as well as the appropriate disabled child element in child tax credit and the additional amount in universal credit. The Government think it right that, just as families who support themselves solely through work must weigh up financial considerations when deciding to have more children, families in receipt of benefits should face the same sorts of financial consideration. That should apply to all families.
In recognition of the costs of supporting disabled children, we will create a separate disability element of child tax credit that will be payable for all disabled children, regardless of whether they are the third or subsequent children or otherwise. We will continue to pay the relevant additional amount for disabled children in universal credit, regardless of whether those children are the third or subsequent children or otherwise.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark rightly raised the subject of childcare. He will know that, in the tax-free childcare system that we are introducing, there is, quite rightly, a special addition to recognise the additional costs of childcare that pertain for children with a disability. In the overall offer of 15 hours and 30 hours of childcare there is, as he will know, rightly a statutory duty on local authorities to ensure proper provision for children with disabilities in the nurseries that their families trust.
Neil Coyle
The Minister mentioned universal credit. It sounds like that might be welcome. Will he update us on the roll-out of universal credit and identify where the overlap with the measure will not exist? There is a statutory responsibility on local authorities, but how will the Government ensure that families with disabled children who cannot access appropriate, accessible childcare are not penalised?
Damian Hinds
I do not dispute for a moment what the hon. Gentleman says. I agree with him entirely that we—the Government and Members of Parliament—must be vigilant in ensuring that families, including those with disabled children, have access to good childcare. It is a duty on local authorities but vigilance is always required to ensure that such measures are delivered. The hon. Gentleman asked about the roll-out of universal credit. I am not quite sure of the specific context in relation to the measures—I will just say that it is on track. It will be in every jobcentre by April 2016, with the bulk of migration complete by 2019.
New clause 16 seeks to specify exemptions to our proposals, including a new role for the Social Security Advisory Committee, and to establish an appeals process. The Government have already given a clear commitment that multiple births, for example twins or triplets, will be treated as a single birth with a child element for each sibling where there were previously fewer than two children in the household. We have also set out that there will be protections—we discussed this earlier—for women who have a third child as the result of rape. We will set out exemptions in regulations after discussions with stakeholders and careful consideration. Using regulations to set out exemptions provides the Government with greater flexibility to adjust exemptions in the future without needing to secure primary legislation. That is more appropriate because we may wish to act relatively quickly in the light of operational experience.
The Social Security Advisory Committee, as its name suggests, is a valuable body for advising the Government on our secondary legislation. It does not, however, have the remit to design legislation. That is the proper job of the Government and we consult with the committee as appropriate. Amendments 83 and 84 relate to the proposed exemption of households where any child or qualifying young person is disabled. I have responded on that issue.
Finally, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to set up an appeals structure. Social security and tax credits already have comprehensive appeals arrangements that will apply to any decisions made under the provisions in the Bill or exceptions set out in regulations. The provision is therefore not required. For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is not appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. We have recognised that there will be a need for some exemptions, for example in relation to multiple births, but those are much better dealt with in a considered way in collaboration with stakeholders through secondary legislation. I urge the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury to withdraw the amendment.
Emily Thornberry
I am very grateful to the Minister for the answers he has given but the reason for our view that the Social Security Advisory Committee should define the exceptional circumstances is that that decision should not be made by politicians. The Social Security Advisory Committee, which is an expert body on the matter, can look at exceptional circumstances. The Government may have come round to the idea of an exemption for multiple births—we are glad to hear that—but they will not necessarily have thought of all the exceptional circumstances, so an expert body, such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, is important.
We are always concerned about dealing with such matters in secondary legislation because the level of democratic accountability in secondary legislation is not the same as that in primary legislation. If the Bill had been thought through properly, it would not be for the Opposition to table such amendments—the Government would have thought through the most difficult effects of their policy and would have done all they could to counter them. It is our duty in Committee to point out such things. I hope the Government come back with amendments to the primary legislation so that it can be scrutinised properly rather than knocked off into the long grass. It is an important aspect. In such circumstances, we will press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
I think that we have had a pretty good canter around the clause, so I do not propose to allow a separate debate on it.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 12, page 13, line 23, at end insert—
“unless this would result in an amount no longer being paid in respect of a child or young person who was born before 6 April 2017, in which case a payment shall still be made in respect of this child or young person.”
To ensure that the reduction of the child element of Universal Credit to two children only affect children born after 6 April 2017.
The point of the amendment, which largely echoes points made earlier, is that it is unrealistic and unfair to expect families to make long-term decisions based on the proposals in the Bill. Even if it were not, it would still be unfair to include families with children born before the policy was even announced, which is what the clause does. As far as I understand the clause—I would love to stand corrected if I have misinterpreted it—proposed new subsection (1A) in clause 12(2) makes it clear that, regardless of when a child was born, when universal credit is brought in people will be penalised. It is as if the policy is being sold as, “Let’s get people to make responsible decisions” and “This policy will make all the difference in terms of the decisions that people make”, but when universal credit finally comes over the sunlit mountains and changes our world it will not matter at what stage people have decided to have their children—“We will penalise you anyway.”
I do not want to reiterate the points that have already been made about the assumption that people will make decisions about their next 18 years based on Tory party policy, or how likely they are to know whether their partner is going to die or be abusive towards them in later years, but a particularly troublesome area of the Bill is that it would force women to stay with abusive partners. On the other hand, there is an equally perverse couples penalty that will provide a strong financial incentive for couples with more than two children to separate. The clause is particularly vicious in that it goes in the opposite direction from the Conservative party rhetoric that is used to justify this unfair piece of legislation, so that is why we tabled the amendment.
Damian Hinds
The amendment would see the policy that limits support to two children applied only to children born after April 2017, rather than also applying to entirely new claims for universal credit. The part of clause 12 that the amendment would change is primarily about fairness to the taxpayer and ensuring that where people can provide for themselves, they do so. We estimate that the amendment would increase universal credit expenditure by £245 million in 2019-20. We have committed to protecting universal credit claimants at the point of change and new claimants who have been in receipt of universal credit or tax credits in the previous six months. The policy will therefore apply only to claimants who have been supporting themselves entirely outside the benefits and tax credits system for more than six months and who will therefore not see a cash loss.
We also need to remember that child benefit will remain in payment for all eligible children, continuing to provide support beyond the child element of universal credit.
Emily Thornberry
Can I just rewind a little? New claims for universal credit will be affected by the two-child policy. When universal credit comes in, people will need to make a claim for it. If someone is on benefits or tax credits when universal credit is brought in, will there be a seamless transition whereby they will not be seen as a new claimant and not be adversely affected?
Damian Hinds
It is an untold pleasure to put the hon. Lady’s mind at rest. We are referring to entirely new claims and not to an existing recipient of tax credits for a third or subsequent child under either universal credit or the predecessor tax credits system. There is also the six-month window, so the Bill strikes the right balance between those needing support and the taxpayer.
Emily Thornberry
Why, then, is there a discrepancy between clause proposed new subsection (3A) in clause 11(4) and proposed new subsection (1A) in clause 12(2)? Clause 11(4) spells out that a qualifying young person is born on or after 6 April 2017, but clause 12 does not state a date of birth. That is the reason for the misunderstanding. I am glad to hear what the Minister says here in Committee, because that has some legal standing, but it would have been easier if it had been in the Bill.
Damian Hinds
I will have to ask for the hon. Lady’s forbearance and forgiveness for my lack of photographic memory of proposed new subsection (3A). However, I can reassure her that the point is about new claims or those with a gap of more than six months since receipt of either universal credit or the predecessor tax credits system. The Bill strikes the right balance between the support that people need and the taxpayer. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Emily Thornberry
In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Welfare Reform and Work Bill (Eighth sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 13, page 14, line 21, at end insert—
‘(5A) The Secretary of State must make provision for additional personalised and specialist employment support in connection with subsections (1) to (3).
(5B) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the following—
(a) the forms of personalised and specialist employment support;
(b) the means by which a diverse market of suppliers for personalised and specialist employment support can be developed in local areas; and
(c) information for local authorities seeking to improve local disability employment rates.’
To provide additional specialist employment support for disabled people.
I thank all Members for their understanding earlier and apologise for the interruption to our business, which was due to some sad family news.
Amendment 139 would require the Secretary of State to make provision for additional personalised and specialist employment support for disabled people. As we have heard previously in the Committee, the Government’s ambition of halving the disability employment gap is welcome, but it represents a not insignificant challenge and much more detail is needed for Committee members to be able to scrutinise how itis to be achieved. It is unclear from the Bill how Ministers intend practically to narrow the disability employment gap.
Of course, we operate in the context of what has happened in the past five years in particular, when we have seen the number of disability employment advisers at Jobcentre Plus drop; the number of disabled people supported by Access to Work, in particular, fall; work capability assessments being delayed or made inaccurately; and a lower percentage of working-age disabled people actually supported into work. We have a Work programme that has not had the highest success rate in ensuring that disabled people go on into employment. Many disabled people can and want to work, but face significant barriers to entering and staying in work. That is why specialist employment support is crucial, and this amendment is aimed at securing information from Ministers to ensure that that is delivered and is effective.
The Committee heard a great deal from witnesses about the kind of employment support that would be effective, the improvements that are needed and the lack of support that disabled people currently feel able to access. We have heard from the Minister that the Government plan to invest in additional employment support for disabled people, starting at £60 million a year from 2016-17 and rising to £100 million a year by 2021. That is positive and welcome, but it is important to understand how it will be used and how its efficacy will be measured. As yet we have heard no detail on how that investment will be directed or implemented, or how many people it is designed to support.
There are also concerns in the disability sector about whether that money will be used for Disability Confident, because of the lack of transparency about how Disability Confident is measured, and whether it is just a means of attracting employers to events or is genuinely about focusing on job outcomes for disabled people. I hope that the Minister will have the opportunity today to set out how the Government intend to develop the support programme and what it will look like in practice.
We know that disabled people trying to find, enter and stay in work face a number of barriers. They can include a lack of suitable and vacant jobs, poor attitudes from potential employers towards hiring disabled people and a lack of appropriate support to enter the workplace. However, current back-to-work support for disabled people simply is not delivering. The work capability assessment does not accurately determine the support that disabled people need; it is more of a medically focused assessment process and does not relate to disabled people’s real experience of trying to find work and, in particular, stay in work. Specialist support to assist with finding and staying in work is essential, and the amendment is designed to help secure that.
There is also concern that existing employment support is misfiring and is ineffective. To provide some detail, job outcomes for disabled people on the Work programme are only 7.7% for those entering employment support allowance, and just 3.9% for those moving from incapacity benefit on to employment support allowance. Furthermore, the specialist Work Choice programme is ineffectively targeted and offers support only to a very small number of disabled people, and I should say that the figures I have just used are the Department’s own figures. A recent evaluation of the Work programme by the Department found that disabled people were more likely than other groups to say they had not received support, which is surprising given that there is meant to be dedicated support. Those who had received support were less likely to say that it was helpful.
Both programmes come to an end in 2017, and the amendment gives the Minister another opportunity to outline what support will be available in practice from then. What plans do the Government have to re-evaluate those programmes and the type of support they offer? What improvements do they have planned?
There is particular concern among disabled people and disability organisations—I refer particularly to the briefing I have received from the disability organisation Scope—about what the quantitative changes to employment and support allowance could mean in relation to conditionality. I do not think any Member would want to find a disabled person coming to their surgery having experienced sanctions, unable to access any benefit as a result of the changes and without sufficient employment support.
Written evidence to the Committee has called for employment support to be tailored to the needs of the individual, joined up with wider public services and more reflective of local labour markets. Specialist providers have the expertise to respond directly to specific barriers to work that disabled people experience. If the Minister has not already visited, I certainly recommend that she sees the Royal National Institute of Blind People’s support programme in Loughborough. Specialist employment support could include peer-to-peer sessions, interview and CV preparation, support focused on managing specific impairments, and discussing with employers how to manage different types of support in the workplace. Such support allows for more intensive and effective interventions that reflect the specific support needs of an individual.
Scope provided me with Azar’s story. Azar is 20 and recently took part in Scope’s pre-employment programme for young disabled people. Azar has cerebral palsy and told Scope that because of his disability, potential employers assumed that “he couldn’t do this and he couldn’t do that”. He knew that he wanted to work in business, so after he left college he was looking for a job, as he wanted experience to put on his CV. Having had the support of a professional mentor, he feels more confident and less worried about being judged, which has a significant and positive impact on his employability.
Job retention is another area that requires renewed focus if we are to halve the disability employment gap, and specialist employment support has a role to play in that too. Ann, a member of staff of Scope’s employment service, provides an example of how such support can help people stay in work. Ann supported a client with Asperger’s syndrome who worked in a hotel. When he got stressed and bombarded with customers, he went into his shell and ignored people. He got really upset with his own behaviour. The reasonable adjustment was for Ann, the specialist disability employment support worker, to speak to the manager and ask about making sure that the client was able to have a breather for five minutes to handle the stress. The manager was absolutely fine with that. That is a straightforward, cost-neutral, reasonable adjustment and has significant positive benefits, but requires someone who understands the health condition and is able to work with the employer.
The Government should consider personal budgets to support disabled people, so that they have greater control over the type of employment support they receive. The In Control programme had a certain measure of success, and it is a shame that it has been wrapped up. There is considerable international evidence that personal budgets can empower disabled people to have increased choice and control over their career by removing bureaucracy from the employment support system and creating greater flexibility in the type of employment support available. They also serve to help smooth the transition for disabled people moving from unemployment into work, they and should link up with Access to Work support. If people were able to carry through the Access to Work package, it would smooth the system significantly.
Finally, the devolution agenda provides a big opportunity to do far more to ensure that disabled people are connected to growth and employment opportunities in their local area. There are precedents for funding focused on increasing employment rates for specific groups of people, such as the Youth Contract and the Youth Contract for cities. There is the potential for regions to be incentivised to put disabled people at the heart of their growth strategies. That could be done by creating specialist employment support programmes, bringing together local employers or looking at wider strategies. I therefore urge the Government to ensure as a minimum that regulations made under the Bill give due consideration to types of support that will ensure that many more disabled people are better supported in the workplace.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place, and I am glad to see that he has been able to return.
The SNP fully oppose the proposals within clauses 13 and 14. We are glad to see Labour making some headway and supporting us in our opposition. To reduce the rate of employment and support allowance to that of jobseeker’s allowance is completely immoral and makes absolutely no sense to us. The Government clearly did not consider when formulating the policy the fact that those who have been placed in the ESA work-related activity group have been independently found unfit to work. Otherwise they would not seek to reduce the support for those who are ill or have disabilities or more complex needs to the same level as support for fit-for-work claimants, such as those receiving JSA.
ESA claimants have always received a higher rate than those on JSA, because they typically take longer to move back into work, as they face additional barriers. Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind, expressed the same concern when he said:
“Almost 60% of people on JSA move off the benefit within 6 months, while almost 60% of people in the WRAG need this support for at least two years. It is unrealistic to expect people to survive on £73 a week for this length of time.”
Returning to employment is not an option for many people with disabilities. Those unable to work should receive an income replacement benefit to ensure a fair income.
The Minister needs to understand that those who live with an illness or condition are typically worse off than those who do not. A Parkinson’s UK survey in 2007 found that just under a third of working-age people with Parkinson’s were in any form of employment. It further reported that many younger people with Parkinson’s who cannot sustain work because of their condition relied on incapacity benefit for their income or part of their income.
I cite again the case of my constituent with Parkinson’s who came to see me after having been sanctioned. I wrote to the Department about his sanction and raised it with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House and by letter. He was sanctioned and taken to a tribunal, although the Department’s own legislation said that the process should be done in a paper-based format, as people with degenerative diseases are not always fit to present themselves. The Department was not even aware of its own policy, and said so in an email to me. I found that particularly disturbing, and I continue to pursue that case.
The Scottish National party is extremely worried about the provisions. Reducing the ESA WRAG rate from £102.15 a week to £73.10 a week from April 2017—a reduction of just under £30—will force sick people further away from getting back into work, despite the fact that the WRAG was created especially to support the ill and disabled back into work. The Conservatives’ policies are doing exactly the opposite of what they claim they want to do.
The Chancellor said in the summer Budget that it was a perverse incentive for ESA claimants to receive more than JSA claimants without getting support to return to work. He cited the reduction in the number of JSA claimants by 700,000 since 2010 while incapacity benefit claimants have fallen by only 90,000, and said that 61,000 of those in the WRAG want to work. We do not dispute that, and we agree that more support must be put in place to assist those with illnesses and disabilities back into work. However, we do not understand the Government’s rationale for reducing the payments for the ESA WRAG or universal credit. How will that incentivise more people to work? Perhaps the Minister can help us.
The Disability Benefits Consortium has told us that more than 493,000 disabled people are assessed as not being fit for work, 248,000 of them with mental and behavioural problems, 86,000 with diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue and 8,000 with progressive and incurable conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and other serious and degenerative diseases. The DBC has said that those living with long-term conditions are struggling to get by on the current rate of ESA. For the Government to cut it further will surely put them further into poverty and deprivation. The Conservative manifesto committed to halving the disability employment gap, but it is my party’s contention that the reduction in the ESA WRAG component will in fact present more barriers to those with disabilities who are trying to get back to work.
Mencap has said that households that include a disabled person will be hit much harder than others. Given that a third of them already live below the poverty line, the additional reduction in income will have a devastating impact on those most in need of Government support. The Government’s own figures already show that over the past year, the number of disabled people living in poverty has increased by 300,000. I am astonished that the Minister can even consider taking a small additional payment away from the ill and disabled when they are struggling to deal with the challenges of their condition.
Given the Government’s own admission that the vast majority of people in the WRAG want to work, they should be protecting any benefit that will help break down the barriers to work. The SNP has been sent here to defend our people from further hardship, to protect them from poverty and to secure a fair, just and sustainable pathway to prosperity. We will not find that in this Bill. I call on Members on both sides of the Committee to vote with the SNP to remove these unscrupulous plans.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is good to see you again, Mr Streeter. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark for his introductory speech, especially given the circumstances.
I stand to speak against clause 13. Are we considering clause 14 at the same time?
The Chair
Not at the same time, but let us now agree that this can develop into a clause 13 stand part debate at the same time as considering amendment 139.
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful for that clarification and for your leeway, Mr Streeter.
I am grateful to the various organisations, charities and many individuals who have contacted me with their personal stories about how they believe these changes to ESA WRAG support will affect them. I particularly mention Parkinson’s UK, Macmillan Cancer Support, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the RNIB, the Disability Benefits Consortium, Scope, Inclusion London, United Response, Mind and the Richmond group. Collectively, those disability and health organisations represent more than 15 million people in the UK who are disabled or have a serious long-term condition.
We want to prevent the cuts to the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance. We believe it is unjust and unfair that disabled people, and people with serious health conditions who have been assessed as part of the work capability assessment process as not fit for work and placed in the work-related activity group, are having their social security support cut by nearly £30 from £102.15 to £73.10. There is compelling evidence from the independent Extra Costs Commission, which analysed the additional costs facing disabled people and found that, on average, they spend an extra £550 a month associated with their disability.
The Government’s proposed cuts affecting people in the ESA WRAG are on top of the whole host of other cuts in social security support for disabled people since 2010. The Hardest Hit coalition has estimated that, by 2018, £23.8 billion will have been taken from 3.7 million disabled people. There were 13 policy changes under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, including changes in the indexation of social security payments from the higher retail prices index to the lower consumer prices index and the 1% cap on the uprating of certain working-age benefits, which has cut £9 billion from 3.7 million people’s social security support. People on incapacity benefit have been reassessed, which has taken another £5.6 billion. The time for which disabled people in the ESA WRAG are able to receive support has been limited, cutting another £4.4 billion. The reassessment of disabled people receiving disability living allowance to determine whether they are eligible for personal independence payment means that another £2.62 billion has been taken. That is on top of the provisions in the Bill, and we should not forget the cuts to social care, which are currently up to £3.6 billion and predicted to be £4 billion by 2020. Disabled people rely very much on support through social care.
In light of the significant existing cuts, will the Minister confirm whether the Government have undertaken a cumulative impact assessment on the latest proposed cuts affecting disabled people, in light of the requirements under the Equality Act 2010 and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s work on cumulative impact modelling?
This morning, the Exchequer Secretary mentioned the importance of controlling welfare and social security spending. The UK currently spends 1.3% of GDP on disabled people. Out of 32 European states, we rank 19th in what we provide to disabled people. I did not have the information at my fingertips this morning, but for families and children it is slightly worse at 1.1%—23rd out of 32 European countries. We are a wealthy country, and to build our recovery on punitive measures against disabled people, vulnerable children and families is appalling.
The Government’s impact assessment on the changes to the work-related component of ESA—apart from being delayed, so that Members were unable to scrutinise it before Second Reading—is very limited in its analysis. For example, although the assessment estimates that approximately 500,000 people and their families will be affected by the cut to ESA WRAG support, there is no analysis of the impact that will have on the number of disabled people who will be pushed into poverty. We know that disabled people are twice as likely to be in persistent poverty as non-disabled people and that 80% of disability-related poverty is caused by the extra costs that I have mentioned. Last year there was a 2% increase in the proportion of disabled people living in poverty, which is equivalent to more than 300,000 disabled people pushed into poverty in one year. Given that half a million people will be affected, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, and will lose 30%, or nearly a third, of their income, what is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the number of disabled people living in poverty?
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. She has come to the Committee relatively late. I know that this is an area of expertise for her, but perhaps I can put on record the evidence that was given to us before she was on the Committee. It was essentially that if the Government are trying, as they put it, to “incentivise” people on employment and support allowance into work by cutting their benefits so that they live on the same level as JSA claimants, it will mean that they are ignoring the fact that people on ESA take longer to get into work. They may well find themselves in a crisis over the winter, when they need a new coat, because they have been unemployed that much longer. People claiming ESA are recognised by the system as not being fit for work.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely pertinent point; in fact, I was going to come on to that, so she must have read my mind. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stated that
“the current system discourages claimants from making the transition into work”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 1258.]
But what about people with progressive conditions such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease? There is no chance that people with those conditions will get better, but they have gone through the work capability assessment process and been placed in the work-related activity group. Are the Government seriously saying that this measure is going to incentivise that group of people into work? How many people with progressive conditions such as those will be affected? Given that, and the fact that in 2014 45% to 50% of ESA appeals were upheld, will the Government finally accept that in addition to being dehumanising, the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose and needs a complete overhaul?
The impact assessment has estimated that, by 2021, approximately £640 million a year will have been cut from social security support to disabled people, with £100 million a year to be provided in unspecified support to help disabled people into work. If the Government are serious about supporting disabled people into work, what measures are in place? This is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury was making.
What measures are in place to ensure that there are jobs for those disabled people who are able to work? What are the estimates of the impact on the employment of disabled people, how this will impact on the Government’s target to reduce the 30% disability employment gap—it is actually 34% in my constituency in Oldham—and how many employers will be engaged? I hope that it is more than the current 68 active employers from the Disability Confident campaign. The campaign has been going for two years and yet only 68 employers are currently active in it; 33 of those are existing disability charities. I hope it will be more than that, but why was this not included in the impact assessment process?
What exactly is the “work” bit in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill? We have heard about reporting on apprenticeships and about different aspects of reporting. But what is the link to ensuring that disabled people are able to go into jobs before they have a third of their weekly income deducted?
On the Thursday before the August bank holiday, five months after the Information Commissioner had ruled that the Government must publish data on the people on incapacity benefit and on ESA who had died between November 2011 and May 2014, the Government finally published these data. They revealed that the death rate for people on IB/ESA in 2013 was 4.3 times that of the general population, and had increased from 3.6 times in 2003. People in the support group are 6.3 times more likely to die than the general population and people in the work-related activity group—the people whose support the Government are seeking to cut—are more than twice as likely to die. The figure is actually 2.2 times more likely to die than the general population.
The Government have, regrettably, continually maligned, vilified and demonised people on disability and other social security benefits. The language around calling people shirkers and scroungers has been picked up and used in many media outlets. In 2010 the instances of use of the term “scrounger” by the mainstream press increased to 572—more than 330% from 2009—and it has stayed at this level. Language is so important, and the way that social security claimants—particularly people with disabilities—are portrayed in the media is so important. The innuendo that people with a disability or illness might be “faking it” or are “feckless” is quite frankly grotesque and belies the epidemiological data. Incapacity benefit and ESA are recognised as good population health indicators. I can say that as a former public health consultant. I have experience of this and I have worked in this field. The release of the Government’s own data, which show that this group are more likely to die than the general population, proves that point. This group of people are vulnerable and need care and support, not humiliation, from us.
Once again the cart is being put before the horse: make cuts in support and cross your fingers that something turns up for disabled people. That also applies to people on low incomes. The policy flies in the face of the Conservative party’s pledge to protect disabled people’s benefits. All last week’s warm words at the Tory party conference are just that if they are not followed up by action.
With this cut to the ESA WRAG support without anything to replace it, the Government are condemning more people with disabilities and their families to living in poverty and I predict, unfortunately, that more tragedies will undoubtedly happen. I urge the Government and all members of the Committee to think again and vote against clause 13 standing part of the Bill.
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark for starting the debate and for his contribution. He has made some very relevant points in terms of how Government can continue to support people with disabilities to get into employment. He has touched on the fact that the Government have made a very solid commitment to increasing the employment of people with disabilities. He and other hon. Members touched on many of the schemes that the Government have undertaken to support people with disabilities and health conditions to get back into work and to participate fully in society. That is why we made a solid commitment in this year’s Budget to spend more than £310 million over the next four years to support people. Coupled with the increase in work incentives in universal credit, this will not only help to make claimants affected by the changes move closer to the labour market, but will contribute to the commitment to halve the disability employment gap. There will be bespoke schemes that are tailored to claimants, to help them back into work. The Disability Confident campaign was mentioned. We have been working with employers to remove the barriers that might prevent disabled people from fulfilling their aspirations.
Neil Coyle
It is welcome to know that more big detail is emerging, but it is disappointing that that detail is not before the Committee, which I think would be right and proper. We had a case this morning where, similarly, there was not enough detail to make scrutiny possible. Will the Minister commit to a meeting with representatives of groups including the Disability Benefits Consortium, Scope and RNIB, to make sure that their views are genuinely taken into account?
Priti Patel
I would be delighted to do exactly that. I would like to emphasise for the benefit of the whole Committee that that is exactly how good policy is developed. It is developed through meeting stakeholders and hearing of their experiences, and of how we can put into implementation the practical support that people need. We need to understand how we can do that through our own current delivery mechanisms, whether through jobcentres or our work coaches or through some of our schemes.
I would also like to touch on the commissioning strategy that the Department holds right now. That includes how the Department approaches the market when looking at flexibilities for support provision, and also how the marketplace itself can develop to include stakeholders and disability organisations to provide that support. Setting out guidance on this in particular is impractical, and obviously the commissioning strategy strikes the right balance in terms of engagement and developing the right options.
Neil Coyle
Will those discussions, debates, consultations and engagement include specific proposals around the Work programme and Work Choice reform?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point. Obviously, with the 2017 date which he touched on coming up, this is about evolving the policy and looking at future provision, as well as existing provision. That is an ongoing discussion that we are having with stakeholders right now in the Department. The hon. Gentleman also spoke about devolution. Devolution provides new opportunities for further integration, and localisation that is based on collaboration, rather than setting out prescriptive approaches. As a Government, we are great believers that that is the appropriate way forward. That reflects the reality that local authorities have a good understanding of these issues, and they work with DWP and also with third parties and stakeholders at a local level.
The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of many of the pilots that are taking place. Obviously we have the Working Well pilot in Greater Manchester with the combined authority, which is an excellent example of how support is being provided at a local level. There is much more in terms of other pilots in particular. By the time that pilot is rolled out it will cover not just individuals with disabilities, but also up to 50,000 individuals with a range of health conditions, to support them. That will involve a budget of in excess of £100 million. This includes something like £36 million from the combined authority alone.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister and I met at the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which I was a member until a couple of weeks ago. I asked in that Committee about the concerns which unfortunately exist around that scheme, including that there was a mandation of claimants to the Working Well scheme. I asked for clarification about that, particularly before the pilot was due to be rolled out. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is dead against it; it flies in the face of its commitment to medical ethics. There are real concerns there.
Priti Patel
Devolution in itself means that local authorities, working with stakeholders and delivery partners, develop the right support and the right policies for implementation to support individuals. It is not for the Government to be prescriptive about that. This is about how we can tailor support for individuals. That is exactly the right approach. This should be completely focused on providing the right level of support for people with health conditions as well as with disabilities—yes, to help them get closer to the labour market and back into work. When I came to the Select Committee there was a broad discussion focused on the value of work and its importance, from the point of view of health and wellbeing, for people’s health conditions as well as for those with disabilities.
That brings me to some other points that were raised, such as employment and support allowance, the WRAG group and the support group, and people with terminal illnesses who, quite rightly, are being supported through the support group. The hon. Lady said she felt that they were at a disadvantage, given the Government’s policy. I suggest that in fact we are supporting them, through ESA, making sure they are being given the right level of support. There is no compulsion for them to go back to work; they are being supported by the system. Through all our welfare reforms we have made it clear that we will continue to protect and support the vulnerable. That of course includes those who have terminal illnesses or people with progressive illnesses who are unable to work. That is exactly what the employment and support allowance and the support group category, in particular, does.
Debbie Abrahams
When we met recently, I asked the Minister about the increase in sanctions for people on ESA WRAG, which has increased since 2012 by 300%. The Minister has just stated that there is no compulsion; yet these people on ESA WRAG are being sanctioned.
Priti Patel
Sanctions are part of the process that the claimant has with the jobcentre, in particular when it comes to the contract they have and their discussions. All the parameters are made perfectly clear to claimants coming to the jobcentres in terms of what is required of them. Those requirements are not unreasonable, given that they are work-related. In particular, they are there to help the individual to get back into work. No unreasonable requirements are placed on the individual at all.
Emily Thornberry
From my experience just of those who come into my surgery, what the right hon. Lady is saying is not in touch with reality. She has talked about the importance of listening to people and I really think that she should listen to this. For example, if someone has a mental health condition which is a variable one, they will be put on the lower component of ESA, so on the edge of being able to work, perhaps with support. If it is insisted that they go in for an interview, or that they do voluntary work or fill out CVs at a period when they are suffering depression or life is particularly chaotic, the experience of my constituents is that the local jobcentre is not sufficiently understanding and they will get sanctioned.
Priti Patel
I say to the hon. Lady that, first, sanctions are there for a purpose: they encourage jobseekers in particular to comply with reasonable requirements.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. That is the purpose of the claimant commitment. Secondly, ESA was introduced back in 2008—as I am sure the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury will remember, although I was not a Member of Parliament then—and was dubbed a radical reform package. The work-related activity component at the time was intended to act as an incentive to encourage people to participate in employment. Clearly, we know that that has not happened. We are therefore reforming our approach with DWP, through our jobcentres and work coaches, to support individuals to get back into work.
Specifically with ESA, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Secretary of State gave a speech just before the conference recess about how we can do more. It is absolutely right that we do more to support people with health and mental health conditions, and work is already taking place around the country. With that will come more co-location of health services with our jobcentres, as well as more support and signposting in our jobcentres.
To return to my point about sanctions, I have no idea what the Labour policy on sanctions is, but they exist as a reasonable requirement through the claimant commitment. Our jobcentre staff work with claimants to ensure that they are being supported in the right way to get into employment. Our work coaches help them and signpost them through universal jobmatch. They get the support required. That is part of the claimant commitment, which is made abundantly clear to the claimant when they come into the jobcentre in the first place.
Neil Coyle
On the reasonableness of sanctions, I have had a mum come into my surgery who was sanctioned for not attending an appointment at Jobcentre Plus because she was taking her daughter to hospital. Does the Minister conclude that that is reasonable?
When employment and support allowance was introduced, there were specific expectations about the number of people who would end up in the support group, in the work-related activity group and on jobseeker’s allowance. Those potentialities were not hit for some time, due to problems with the work capability assessment. Given that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been discussing completely overhauling the work capability assessment, which was in our manifesto in May, is the Minister seriously suggesting that the system is perfect, and—
Priti Patel
Gosh, where to start? To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question about the case that he presented, no. If he would like me to pick it up, I would be happy to do that for him. With regard to the system being perfect, of course it is not; it is evolving over time, hence the Secretary of State’s most recent comment about how we can do more to support people with health conditions so that it becomes a case not of why people cannot work but of how we can support them to get back into work and with their health conditions in particular.
Naz Shah
I could reel off a list of people who have come to my constituency surgery. I am the former chair of the largest BME mental health charity in Bradford. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely diabolical to apply sanctions after testing somebody with mental health difficulties and saying, “If you can tie your shoelaces, you’re capable of going to work”? Does she believe that the number of people who have committed suicide after sanctions have affected their mental health problems is acceptable?
Priti Patel
First, with regard to the hon. Lady’s long list of cases, she is welcome to present them to me, and I will look at each one individually. Secondly, the work capability assessment has evolved over time. The organisations that were originally contracted to undertake it have changed. The point is that people should be assessed for what they can do; it should not be about what they cannot do. Where people have particular health conditions, it is right that we as a society support them either to get back to work or to get the treatment that they need. On her latter point, there is no causal effect at all.
Debbie Abrahams
Again, this all emerged about the Minister saying that there was no compulsion. There clearly is compulsion for people on ESA WRAG. In my speech I raised points about people with progressive conditions such as MS, motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s who are included in that group.
This debate has extended. We as a Parliament are still waiting for the Government’s response to the report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on sanctions beyond Oakley, which specifically considered ESA sanctions. It made a number of recommendations that unfortunately support what has already been said.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I will bring it back to clause 13. Finally, I would like to say while speaking to the clause that we have touched on the level of support that is currently under way for people with health conditions and people with disabilities in particular.
Neil Coyle
It is important to reiterate the concerns about the language on who is protected and who is not. We had some discussion about that before conference recess. The sheet in front of me says that 244,250 people with mental and behavioural disorders in the work-related activity group will be directly affected. Disabled people have already experienced an impact—not that group specifically but more generally. Some 440,000 disabled people have to pay the bedroom tax or spare room subsidy and benefit rates have been frozen, including the vast majority of employment and support allowance benefit paid to disabled people. We have also had the change to disability living allowance. It is very frustrating to hear Ministers continue to claim that disabled people have been protected when they clearly have not.
Having made that significant point, it would be interesting to see in more detail the concrete proposals that the Government are introducing. I am glad they are committed to working with stakeholders, although I am a little bit concerned, having been a co-chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium policy group for some time and not really having been consulted or engaged by them. I hope the relationship has improved under this Minister and that those discussions are constructive. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams
I appreciate that we have moved on, but there are many parallels between our previous objections and our objections to clause 14 and the reasons why we will not be supporting it. The clause relates to the limited capability for work element of universal credit. I do not intend to repeat my arguments from my previous speech, but having said that, very few if any of the questions that I posed were answered by the Minister. I would be grateful if at some stage she could write to me if she cannot provide the answers today. I shall pose a few additional questions, particularly about the analysis of how the cuts will affect 400,000 people with long-term conditions in the ESA WRAG—for example, those with lung disease, cancer or stroke. What do we expect the cost to be for the NHS? The Government are keen to make it a seven-day service but, with the additional demands, will that be achievable?
I have other points to make on the disability employment service, although my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury touched on some of them. The ratio of disability employment advisers in JCP is one adviser to 600 disabled people. How will that be addressed to enable those disabled people who want and are able to work to do so? How will we address the attitudinal issues that many disabled people face in trying to get into work, and ensure support for employers to employ disabled people? Given that 90% of disabled people used to work, what are the Government doing to support them leaving the labour market prematurely?
I have mentioned the Select Committee report on sanctions. Another Select Committee report—it has only just had a response from the Government—is particularly appropriate to the clause. The response on Access to Work from the Government was published, I believe, during the recess, or when we were about to go into recess, nine months after the Select Committee published its report. Last year, Access to Work supported only 35,000 people going into and at work, of a total working age population of 7 million. If there is a genuine desire to reduce the disability employment gap, how on earth is it going to be managed on those ridiculous levels of support? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on the Work programme and Work Choice. The Government are currently retendering the Work programme contract. How will the need for specialist provision be addressed in the retendering process? I urge all hon. Members not to support clause 14.
Priti Patel
Clause 14 deals with universal credit and the limited capability for work element. The clause amends part 1 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 to remove the reference to the limited capability for work element. The change broadly mirrors the ESA changes introduced in clause 13. The fact that a claimant has limited capability for work will no longer exist as a need or circumstance in which regulations may be made for an element to be included in the calculation of the amount of an award of universal credit. The change will apply only to those making new claims to UC and to existing claimants where they or their partners claim on the grounds of having a health condition or disability after the change is introduced. Those claims already eligible for the limited capability for work element at the point of the change will continue to be paid that element as long as their circumstances remain unchanged and they continue to be entitled to UC. Details of how the change will be applied to existing claimants receiving that element will be set out in regulations.
I cannot cover all the points that the hon. Lady has made and, if I may, I will write to her because there are a couple of points that are more data-based that I think I can come back to her on. She mentioned the Select Committee report that is currently being considered by the Department. We will continue to work with and respond to the Work and Pensions Committee. When I came to the Committee, we were discussing many areas such as the Work programme and, in particular, its next iteration. Of course, that is ongoing—it is not specific to the clause, per se, but discussions with stakeholders are ongoing.
I emphasise that Jobcentre Plus has around 400 specialist disability employment advisers supporting disabled people, particularly with regard to support packages such as Work Choice and Access to Work and other schemes. Much more needs to be done as part of the continuing reforms, including on the long-term grassroots approach that we take at our jobcentres to improve the level of support and engagement.
Employers have an important role. The Department is working with employers not just to make the case, but to encourage them to be much more active as employers and to engage in employing people with disability and supporting them in work. It is not just a case of getting people with disability into work, but about sustained employment outcomes. That is the long-term objective we are focused on achieving.
Debbie Abrahams
The report on Access to Work made a number of points about how it was not working. It was published in December, but we had a response only in September. We had Second Reading in July, which shows a total lack of commitment to supporting disabled people, and yet the Government are prepared to take support away from them before they have ensured adequate provision to enable them to work if they are able to do so.
Priti Patel
On the contrary, the measure is not about removing support. It is about what more the Government are doing in terms of our commitment to supporting disabled people to get them into employment. That is down to a package of measures.
Priti Patel
I will not give way.
It is very easy for Labour Members to claim that the measure is about taking money away. It is about providing the right kind of support for people with health conditions and disabilities. It may not be the appropriate answer that the hon. Lady wants to hear. The Government are committed to supporting more employment. Of course, this is a binary argument for her. We are supporting claimants with a limited capability for work through our employment provisions, our jobcentres and the specialist disability employment advisers.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. At the same time, we are working with employers through the schemes that we have, Access to Work being one example.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Neil Coyle
On a point of order, Mr Streeter. Before the conference recess, the Minister committed to provide additional information to my office about the monitoring of disabled people’s carers. I was reminded of that when the same offer was made just now. I do not believe I have received anything yet. Is there an update on when that will be provided?
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order with the Committee. Would the Minister like to respond?
Priti Patel
I will, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have written to him and would be very happy to follow it up with him. I am not sure what has happened to the letter. I know that I have signed it.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 15, page 14, line 31, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would keep the “work-focused interview requirement only” for responsible carers of children aged one and two.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 62, in clause 15, page 14, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“(a) in section 19(2)(c) for the words “under the age of 1” substitute “who has not yet started primary school;”.
This amendment, taken together with amendment 63, would mean claimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carers are not subject to work focused interviews or work preparation requirements until their child starts school. From when a child starts school, relevant claimants would be required to follow all work requirements.
Amendment 58, in clause 15, page 14, line 36, after “2,”, insert “3 or 4”.
This amendment would retain the current position for responsible carers of children aged three and four.
Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 14, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would retain the current position for responsible carers of children aged three and four.
Amendment 60, in clause 15, page 14, line 40, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would keep the current prescribed age of three years in universal credit regulations on the “work-focused interview requirement” for responsible carers of children in receipt of universal credit.
Amendment 63, in clause 15, page 14, line 40, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in regulation 91 (claimants subject to work-focused interview requirement only), for the word “3” substitute “5 or when the child starts primary school”;
(b) in regulation 91A (claimants subject to work preparation requirement) for the words “3 or 4” substitute “who has not yet started primary school”;”.
This amendment, taken together with amendment 62, would mean claimants in receipt of universal credit who are responsible carers are not subject to work focused interviews or work preparation requirements until their child starts school. From when a child starts school, relevant claimants would be required to follow all work requirements.
Amendment 61, in clause 15, page 14, line 42, leave out paragraph (b).ww
This amendment would keep the current age of child (which is three or four) in universal credit regulations on the work-preparation requirement for responsible carers of children in receipt of universal credit.
Amendment 140, in clause 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
“(d) in section 22(1) after “section” insert “, except if the claimant is the responsible carer of a disabled child aged 3 or 4.
(1B) The Secretary of State must lay regulations determining what a disabled child is for the purpose of this section and may include, but will not be limited to a child—
(a) in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan,
(b) in receipt of a Statement of Special Educational Needs,
(c) identified by their local authority as having special educational needs,
(d) with child in need status,
(e) meeting the definition of disabled under the Equality Act 2010.”
To exempt a responsible carer of a disabled child aged 3 or 4 from all work-related requirements.
Corri Wilson
The Scottish National party has tabled the amendments to mitigate the changes and to take the pressure off responsible carers with very young children who receive universal credit. Currently, lone parents need attend work-focused interviews or work-related activity only when their children are between the ages of one and five, rather than having to actively seek work. The clause will mean that all parents will be expected to be available for and actively seeking work by the time their youngest child turns three in order to claim universal credit. We wish to stop those changes to the work-related requirements as well as roll back the work-related requirement for responsible carers set out in the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Amendment 57 would ensure that the work-focused interview requirement for responsible carers of children aged two and three would remain unchanged. Amendments 58 and 59 would remove the changes to the work-preparation requirement. Amendments 60 and 61 would remove the changes to the work-focused interview requirement and the work-preparation interview requirement. Amendments 62 and 63 would amend the Welfare Reform Act so that claimants would be subject to no work-related requirements until their child begins attending school.
A child’s most critical and vulnerable years should be based on a foundation of support and love, which can make all the difference to a child’s confidence and educational attainment in later life, not to mention the benefits of family and social cohesion. Forcing a parent to spend more time looking for work means they have no choice if they want to spend more time with the child in its formative years. Where most parents are keen to return to work and to maximise their income, the provision will deprive parents of the choice of what is best for their child in the crucial early years of their development. Forcing parents to return to work before they are ready can be counterproductive and lead to financial instability as parents move in and out of work. That may lead to undue stress on parents, causing them to struggle with balancing work and the care of their young child.
Increasing conditionality for universal credit is simply another ideological crusade against those who are in genuine need of welfare support. It is, of course, not ideal for an individual to be receiving benefits, but for many it is nevertheless essential and can mean the difference between independence and absolute poverty. The stricter conditionality requirements contribute to making life intolerable for benefit claimants. In effect, it condemns the lives of those on the benefits that enable them to live independently, such as severely disabled people.
The extra requirements will bring with them an increased risk of claimants incurring sanctions. The effect of benefit sanctions are bad enough on individual benefit claimants, but increasing conditionality for responsible carers, which puts them at further risk of incurring sanctions, will have the knock-on effect of condemning the children they care for.
Carers UK has expressed concern over the effects of the clause on responsible carers of disabled children, partly due to the documented lack of childcare for disabled children. Carers of children in receipt of the higher or middle rate care component of disability living allowance are exempt from the requirements, but that does not protect carers of very young children with disabilities when there are difficulties in identifying them in the early years.
It is imperative that lone parents and responsible carers are supported back into work, but not forced or sanctioned while their young child needs their support at home. The difficulties that present themselves—accessing affordable childcare, finding suitable support for a child or finding a stable job that allows a parent to have the time needed with a young child—are huge. The everyday challenges that face working families and young parents are not as black and white as the Government would have us believe. I therefore urge all Members to unite today with the SNP to remove the harsh conditionality elements placed on parents while their children are young and effectively just babies.
Emily Thornberry
May I comment briefly on the SNP’s amendments? Although I applaud the sentiment behind them, and if they are pressed to a vote, the hon. Lady can rely on our support, I want to put on record that it is not completely unconditional. The reality of life within jobcentres, unfortunately—it should not be like this—is that jobcentres have to be told that their job is to get particular groups of people into work. A constituent of mine came to see me and said, “My son is four. I would like to go back to work, but when I go to the jobcentre they don’t give me any help.” We should not need to choose between the extreme proposed by the Government and nothing. It should be possible to make jobcentres know that their primary job is not just to get people off jobseeker’s allowance at all costs and to sort out the statistics as best they can, but to ensure that they are sufficiently adaptable and flexible to help people who genuinely want to work to get into work, even if it means not fulfilling a target.
There will be people—particularly single women—who want help at an early stage, perhaps because their mum lives next door and they have good childcare, or perhaps because they have a skill level that will allow them to get work relatively easily with a bit of help from the jobcentre. They should not feel that the jobcentre believes it should not look after them because they are not part of the targets. I put in that caveat because the real world is not black and white; there are people in between who may be lost by the amendments. However, that is not to say that in principle we will not support the SNP’s amendments.
Neil Coyle
I rise to speak to amendment 140, which is about the intention expressed by the Government, including the Prime Minister, to protect disabled people. We have heard how the changes to disability living allowance and employment support allowance will affect disabled people directly. The amendment is designed to protect the parents of disabled children aged three or four.
The reason for tabling the amendment is that parents and carers of disabled children aged three or four would be allocated to the all work-related requirements group if the Bill is enacted as drafted, which would require them to look for and be available for work. It would be useful if the Minister could indicate whether that is an intentional provision, or whether it is incidental or accidental. I do not think I am going to get that acknowledgement at this stage.
There is an exemption for parents of children in receipt of the highest or middle rates of the care component of disability living allowance, but it will exempt only a very small number of parents, as few receive that benefit at that level. As many Members know, it is getting harder for parents to access disability living allowance. I certainly have experience of that from my postbag and surgeries.
Many parents of disabled children choose to care for their child, and they best know their child’s needs and abilities. Those who wish to work often come up against the lack of appropriate childcare for disabled children, as we discussed earlier. As the shadow Minister indicated, it is also more expensive to access tailored childcare for disabled children.
The rationale for the amendment is based on recent policy changes that require carers of children aged five to make a return to work. However, the Bill equates parents of children aged three and parents of children aged five. There are obviously significant differences between the two ages, which means that the Government’s assumption risks harming families, not least because five-year-olds are in primary education.
There is a read-across to the Childcare Bill, in which the Government are proposing to offer 30 hours of free childcare to working parents. That could help, but the Childcare Bill as drafted does not properly account for the barriers faced by families with disabled children when accessing childcare provision. For the same reason that we discussed this morning, it would be useful to know how the Government intend to identify that parents genuinely have access to 30 hours of appropriate childcare for a disabled child. They cannot just put a statutory obligation on a council to provide it, because we know it is not being delivered.
Many providers under the three and four-year-old offer are not able to meet the needs of children with more complex needs, and the additional cost of childcare for disabled children can limit the number of hours that can actually be accessed. The combination of those issues could severely compromise a parent’s ability to meet the conditions of looking for work, which would not be taken into account as the Bill is drafted. An offer of support is not the same as appropriate support genuinely being available in practice. This concern has been expressed by disability organisations in written and other evidence submitted to the Committee. Currently, carers of children in receipt of the highest or middle rate care component of DLA are exempted from the all work-related requirements group. The amendment would extend that protection.
Department for Work and Pensions figures suggest that there are currently just 53,000 claimants of DLA for children aged nought to five years. If the amendment is blocked, many carers of severely disabled children could be subject to conditions and sanctions, as we have already discussed, despite the fact that it can take a considerable amount of time for parents and carers of disabled children to be able to access disability living allowance. I do not think that it is the intention of Conservative MPs in particular to end up with the parent of a disabled youngster turning up in their surgery who is not able to access appropriate childcare, has work-related conditions in place and ends up being sanctioned, and then has absolutely nothing coming in. I hope that that is not the intention, and I do not believe that it is. I hope that the Government will consider this amendment.
My last point is that amendment 140 should be accepted to reflect the fact that a disabled child’s needs and the specific level of support that they require may be very hard to identify under the age of five. DLA is not a brilliant basis for the exemption of carers. It is not sufficient. It can take months or years to access disability living allowance—indeed, the Prime Minister has spoken of his own personal battle when trying to apply for disability living allowance for his son. Personal experiences should be taken into consideration when pressing ahead with this legislation. The amendment proposes using additional criteria to determine whether someone is caring for a severely disabled child which go beyond a sole reliance on claiming DLA at a certain level. These include statements of special educational needs, which a small number of children under five receive; replacement education, health and care plans; those defined as children in need; and those who meet the Equality Act definition of disabled.
Priti Patel
Clearly, this Government believe that there is much more that can be done to support all parents, including lone parents with young children, to prepare for and look for work. I will come on to amendment 140 and some of the points which have just been raised in a minute. Universal credit offers significant work incentives over the current system of benefits, with the structure of UC designed to encourage and reward work. As universal credit is paid both in and out of work, many of the barriers to work start to be removed. Claimants with young children in particular can try suitable work depending on their own circumstances in the knowledge that their universal credit claim will not automatically close and, importantly, that their payments are adjusted systematically to take account of their earnings.
The support that we provide through work coaches should help to make parents much more ready to move into employment—that, of course, is the point of work coaches and of Jobcentre Plus in particular. Jobcentre Plus plays a vital role in supporting parents to find work via the core framework and interventions with a dedicated work coach, helping those furthest from the labour market to return or move closer to it. Work coaches deliver a personalised service to best meet the needs of the parent in relation to the local labour market conditions. That is why the Government are investing in extra work coach support. Work coaches will be able to build a relationship with individuals, ensuring that work-related requirements are tailored to their particular circumstances and capability, and are compatible with their childcare responsibilities. Work coaches also provide a gateway to access much of the other support that is available, which includes skills training and sector-based work academies, as well as financial support through the flexible support fund, in order to remove some of the barriers.
The findings from the “Universal Credit at work” report shows that those on universal credit are working more compared with those on jobseeker’s allowance. Of course, universal credit encourages claimants to find work, to increase their earnings and support themselves. I know childcare has been touched upon in our broader debates today, but it is worth mentioning that parents of disadvantaged two-year-olds in particular are able to access to free early-years education. Parents may also have access to jobcentre funding to enable them to undertake the work preparation that is necessary while their children are at that young age.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says that individual circumstances will be taken into account. Will that include monitoring or testing to see that a parent is genuinely able to get access to the level of childcare that she says should be available?
Priti Patel
I will come on to that when I speak to amendment 140. If I do not answer that specific point, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will intervene on me.
Carers provide invaluable support for relatives, partners or friends who through whatever circumstances are ill or disabled. The carer element within universal credit is to support carers on a low income who provide care for 35 hours or more each week for a severely disabled person. That does not replace carer’s allowance, which will continue to exist as a separate benefit outside universal credit.
Importantly, for those with less substantial caring responsibilities, some work-related conditions may apply; but existing legislation is clear about how those should be limited. Requirements for each claimant will depend on their individual capability, circumstances and caring responsibilities. That comes back to my point that the expectation will be based purely on the individual’s personal circumstances. Most responsible carers of a disabled child aged three or four will not be subject to the conditionality associated with the clause. Responsible carers who receive the carer element will fall into the “no conditionality” group in universal credit, which means that no work-related conditions will be applied.
For carers who are not entitled to the carer element, different levels of conditionality will apply. Some who do not qualify for it will be placed in the “no conditionality” group. These include full-time carers of a severely disabled person who are unable to receive the carer element because they are not the main carer, and carers of more than one severely disabled person whose cumulative caring responsibilities mean that it would be unreasonable to impose conditions on them. Also it would be unreasonable to place requirements on a claimant who is a carer of a severely disabled person for at least 35 hours, or to do so where the care giver is responsible for a severely disabled person awaiting an assessment for a severe disability benefit.
I reiterate that it is important that there should be flexibility for other carers who do not fall into the “no-conditionality” group, because caring responsibilities may change from day to day; I think we all recognise that. Where there is a disabled child in the household, that will be factored into the decision making and the appropriate level of requirements. Any requirements will be tailored.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark specifically mentioned childcare provision for parents of disabled children. He also mentioned the Childcare Bill, which is the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department for Education. More information will follow about the delivery of the childcare element, in particular the 15-hour and 30-hour delivery measures for local provision. We want to ensure that provision is in place for the parents of disabled children. We have to work with the providers on the ground, which is something that the Department for Education is doing now, working with stakeholders and consulting. That is part of a wide-ranging piece of work. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this point, however, and I will I pick it up with my colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that that is featured in and factored into their discussions with stakeholders.
Neil Coyle
Is the Minister suggesting that the Government’s expectation is that parents of a disabled child who are unable to access 30 hours of childcare would not be subject to the conditionality that might be imposed were such support to be in place?
Priti Patel
First, we have to ensure that the provision is in place, which is part of the wider childcare offering, and work is taking place through the Childcare Bill, including on delivery. Importantly, this is about working with the parents of disabled children. We have to look at individual cases to ensure that support is tailored for them. There should never be a one-size-fits-all policy—we all recognise that—so through Jobcentre Plus and our work coaches we will look at all the relevant circumstances of the individuals.
I urge the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock to withdraw the amendment.
Corri Wilson
I was interested in the view of the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury on the jobcentre system. I worked in the Department for Work and Pensions for 20 years, and my experience is that jobcentre staff work incredibly hard to get claimants into work. The main reason that claimants cannot get off benefits seems to be that suitable jobs are not out there. Year after year, staff’s flexibility and autonomy have been diminished. Staff are tied up with sanctions regimes, at the expense of a focus on clients and getting them back into work. That is one of the reasons why we want more powers in Scotland, so that we can take control of our economy to boost economic levers that will help grow our economy and create jobs to get people off benefits. Universal credit conditionality and changes for carers will put an unacceptable and unnecessary pressure on families. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
‘(d) Insert after section 18
“(18A) Guidance on lone parents
(1) The Secretary of State shall, by regulation, provide guidance to Jobcentre Plus setting out how it should support claimants who are lone parents in meeting the work-related requirements that they are subject to.”.’
To require the Secretary of State to set out in regulation how Jobcentre Plus should support claimant of universal credit who are lone parents meet the work-related requirements they are subject to.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 131, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3) Claimants subject to new requirements as a result of the measures contained in subsections (1) and (2) of this clause must, at a time no later than three months before subsections (1) and (2) come into force, receive written notification of the lone parent flexibilities issued as guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff.’
To provide that anyone who becomes subject to new work-related requirements as a result of the measures in clause 15 must be provided with written notification of the lone parent flexibilities which the DWP issues as guidance to Jobcentre Plus staff.
Amendment 132, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3) The Secretary of State must, at time no later than three months before subsections (1) and (2) come into force, issue guidance on the lone parent flexibilities to Jobcentre Plus managers, such guidance must include provision on the training of Jobcentre Plus staff in advance of the new work-related requirements coming into force.’
To require the Secretary of State to issue up to date written guidance to Jobcentre Plus managers on the lone parent flexibilities, including provisions on the training of Jobcentre Plus staff.
Amendment 133, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3) The Secretary of State may not impose a work search requirement on any claimant in receipt of Universal Credit, who is a lone parent, in circumstances which include but are not limited to the following—
(a) the claimant’s adviser determines that there is an inadequate number of suitable employment vacancies within reasonable daily travelling distance of the claimant‘s home;
(b) the claimant is responsible for the care of a child during that child‘s school holidays, and it is not reasonable to expect the claimant to make alternative arrangements;
(c) the claimant is responsible for the care of a child during any period in which that child is excluded from school, or is otherwise not receiving education pursuant to arrangements made by a local education authority, and it is not reasonable to expect the claimant to make alternative arrangements;
(d) any child care expenses which would be necessarily incurred by the claimant as a result of carrying out the requirement imposed would represent an unreasonably high proportion of the income the claimant could expect to receive while carrying out the requirement in question;
(e) the claimant is enrolled on a course of study leading to a vocational qualification, or is otherwise undertaking engaged in vocational training;
(f) the claimant has become a lone parent within the last six months;
(g) any other circumstances in which the claimant‘s adviser may consider the imposition of a work search requirement to be unreasonable in light of that claimant‘s individual circumstances.’
To provide a statutory basis for flexibility to be applied in imposing work search requirements on lone parents in receipt of Universal Credit.
Emily Thornberry
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I want to speak to amendments 131, 132 and 133. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) tabled amendment 101, and to a certain extent the sentiment in that amendment is incorporated in the other three amendments, so it may not be necessary for me to speak specifically to it. In any event, my hon. Friend no longer sits on the Committee. For the sake of simplicity, I will focus on amendments 131 to 133.
Amendment 131 arises because we have noticed a couple of paragraphs in clause 15, at the bottom of page 14, which are short but not sweet. They could have been overlooked, but they should not be. They introduce sweeping changes to work search requirements placed on single parents with very young children and do so in a way that is extraordinarily unfair and poorly thought through. The Bill not only goes further than any changes introduced by previous Governments but severs the link between the time when a child starts school and the time when that a child’s parent is expected to start actively seeking work.
Successive Governments of both parties have introduced changes to expectations on parents, and the age at which a parent is expected to seek work has been progressively lowered from 16 down to 12, then to seven and most recently to five. To a certain extent, it was thought that there was a broad consensus to expect single mothers—it is usually single mothers—to work during term time while their children were at school, subject to appropriate childcare at a price they could afford and working hours that would fit in around school time. That does not seem unreasonable. That seems fine. It seems the sort of thing that very few single parents would object to and that most of the public and a lot of children would want. It is a deeply personal decision but, frankly, I think it would carry the majority of the public on what is a fair expectation of single parents.
Emily Thornberry
Good, I am glad. So, 39% of single parents are having their decisions overturned on appeal. My point is that the discretion given to Jobcentre Plus officials is not appropriate, and that it would be better, and right, to put the requirements into regulations instead, so that they are given legal standing. Discretion is not working. When nearly 40% of cases being overturned on appeal, there is something wrong with the system. That is not rhetoric, it is the evidence, and something needs to be done. The situation raises serious questions about the training of Jobcentre Plus staff and Work programme providers and their ability to make appropriate decisions. To illustrate that point I will give the Minister a few stories from single mothers. Their personal details are disguised, but their cases are real.
There is a women called Geri; she is single mother and has a nine-year-old daughter. Her jobseeker’s agreement sets out the requirements that she must meet as a condition of receiving her benefits, which are that she must apply for 21 jobs a week, either full or part-time, and be prepared to travel up to an hour each way for a job. Emma has a 10-year-old son and lives in Bristol. Her jobseeker’s agreement requires her to look for work in London, which is a 90-minute commute each way, despite the fact that the cost of a season ticket would exceed £5,000 a year. Furthermore, the extended hours of travel would make it impossible for her to take her son to school and pick him up at the end of the day.
A woman called Fiona had her jobseeker’s allowance stopped for three months because she turned down night shifts, which she had to do because she could not find suitable childcare for her daughter. Elaine was threatened with sanctions by her Work programme provider when she said that she could not attend back-to-work courses during the summer holidays. She has two young daughters whom she cannot leave on their own at home. She was offered no help with childcare costs by the provider of the voluntary work that she was supposed to be doing in order to make her fit for work.
I have heard stories of single parents being threatened with sanctions if they do not attend appointments that clash with the school run. I have heard stories from single parents who have been sanctioned for missing appointments in order to stay at home when their children are unwell. I want to point to the evidence and try to help the Minister to make the right sort of social policy, so I point out that Islington Law Centre has a 100% success rate when challenging sanctions imposed on my constituents, which I really think should give Ministers pause for thought. The centre represented, for example, a pregnant woman who was sanctioned for missing an appointment when she was so unwell with morning sickness that she was in hospital.
Debbie Abrahams
To add to my hon. Friend’s list, I have a constituent with three primary school age children, all at different schools. She was compelled to be at appointments when she was trying to get her children to those different schools—she was always given appointments that made it absolutely impossible for her to get to the jobcentre.
Emily Thornberry
Members on both sides of the House may well have examples of such sanctions from people who have come to their surgeries. In particular, single parents are being sanctioned in an attempt to push them into work that is completely inappropriate given their caring responsibilities.
I come back to the distinction between regulations and guidance, which I think is important. It may seem academic to some, but I can assure Ministers that it is not at all academic to the women who are feeling the impact of the lack of adequate flexibility within the system and the lack of understanding of what the rules really are. For our purposes as legislators, it is important to make the distinction between the legal force of regulations and of guidance. Regulations have the force of statute, as they are introduced through secondary legislation, but guidance does not. Guidance is really soft law, and these women do not need soft law.
The principle was summed up quite well in the Supreme Court judgment of R (on the application of Alvi) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department—it is known as the Alvi case—in which the distinction at issue was between immigration rules and informal guidance. Lord Clarke wrote in his judgment:
“It seems to me that, as a matter of ordinary language, there is a clear distinction between guidance and a rule. Guidance is advisory in character; it assists the decision maker but does not compel a particular outcome. By contrast a rule is mandatory in nature; it compels the decision maker to reach a particular result.”
As I say, guidance has been called soft law. As was said in Ali v. London Borough of Newham,
“the court should be circumspect and careful so as to avoid converting what is a non-binding guidance into, in effect, mandatory rules.”
We all know why we are talking about guidance and regulations. We all know that the couple of little paragraphs on page 14 of the Bill will be going to court and will be judicially reviewed, so we need to be quite clear about what the Government want to do. Our job, as Her Majesty’s Opposition, is to look carefully at what the Government intend and at what is fair. We all know that what is said in this Committee is of relevance to the future court cases that will be coming because of the manifest unfairness that will result from the clause.
Let us therefore be clear. I am sure the Minister will tell us how fair all this is, and how everyone is proceeding with good will. But we have heard that before. We had a promise that people in jobcentres would exercise discretion fairly, and so on. We have had enough of that. They have not been doing things fairly, and it has been going wrong. We would now like clear rules so that we all know where we stand—both the single mothers who are trying to balance their caring responsibilities and want to find appropriate work, and the people in jobcentres who quite often feel compelled to force women into work. Any new rules will not be properly understood unless they are made clear. If they turn out to be unfair, they can be challenged.
Under the system that we have, a single mother who puts her responsibility to her children ahead of her requirements under the claimant commitment could lose several weeks of income as a result of an unfair sanction. That means that that family—those children—will not have any money for food. That is a desperate situation, so we need to make sure that something like that is done only in extreme circumstances and that it can be properly justified. That sanction may well be overturned—as I say, if Members come to Islington Law Centre they will find a 100% success rate—but in many cases the damage will already have been done. Does the Minister not agree that regulations, which have the force of law, could protect against some of those injustices? If so, they are worth having.
I turn now to the amendments. As things stand, there are two problems. First, there is inadequate knowledge of lone parent flexibilities: it is not known what it is reasonable to expect from jobcentre staff and Work programme providers. Secondly, single parents themselves may lack knowledge of what would reasonably be expected, so it makes it more difficult to challenge the unreasonable demands that are sometimes placed on them.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady has covered a number of points, but the one that I want to focus on is that it is right for us to support women into work. As the Committee must recognise, we have more women in work than ever before—the rate is now 68.8%. The purpose behind the Government’s changes is support for lone parents in particular to get into work without being prescriptive and in particular by recognising that our work-focused interview approach, with our work coach support, is a key enabler of the policy and, importantly, is investing in the quality of learning and development through our jobcentres. That will give lone parents in particular the right level of support and guidance that they require to find work.
Work coaches, as part of their role and when in discussion with claimants, and lone parents in particular, at the work-focused interviews, will identify the barriers to work and, importantly, the type of support required. That means taking into account the individual circumstances of lone parents and responsible carers, including care and responsibility for their child or children, and in particular identifying the type of work-related requirements possible as a result. The aim is to develop a relationship in which claimants can discuss their issues and circumstances as they emerge. People who have children recognise that circumstances change all the time. Helping to ensure that requirements remain reasonable and appropriate is our priority.
Furthermore, the parents should feel that they are involved in the development of the requirements, which of course are recorded and noted in the claimant commitment, by contributing the steps that they think will give them the best chances of finding work. We will of course only ever have requirements—based around work coaches and jobcentres—that are reasonable in light of the appropriate circumstances.
We recognise that where people are in training the requirements are tailored around that. Training itself can be part of work preparation requirements, so of course it will be relevant to the claimant commitment that is being established as well. It is also important to recognise that it would not be appropriate—and would be difficult and wrong—to set out a uniform level of support that would meet the needs of individuals. Universal credit has been constructed in a way that promotes discretion, tailoring and flexibility. The existing legislation provides work coaches with the flexibility to tailor, limit or even temporarily lift requirements that are entirely based on personal circumstances. The range of circumstances is broad. We will ensure that any work-related requirements are tailored to the individual’s circumstances and, importantly, are compatible with childcare responsibilities.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says that the Department will ensure that the requirements on individuals are flexible and sensitive. In our surgeries and case loads we are already seeing circumstances where that has not been the case to date. The Minister suggests that such individuals should not be experiencing sanctions or disincentives, but what additional safeguards or measures will be put in place to ensure that that does not happen?
Priti Patel
It is not about the guidance that goes out one day to jobcentres or work coaches. We are routinely working with our work coaches and our jobcentres to make sure that they are supporting individuals through the advice that goes down to them, through the guidance that is sent out, through what is being distributed from the Department and also through training. That training is absolutely vital, in particular with regards to work coaches. I emphasise that point. I know that comments have been made about jobcentres not supporting people to get into work, but I would argue against that. I have sat in on many interviews myself, including with lone parents, and I have seen commitments that are tailored to that individual’s circumstances. In fact, I was in Edinburgh two weeks ago; I go to jobcentres on a weekly, very regular basis. It is absolutely the right approach that the work coaches have the freedom and flexibility to support the individual, and also to recognise the labour market conditions locally.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is very generous in giving way. One of the concerns expressed by Jobcentre Plus staff—certainly those in my own constituency and those I have been chatting to elsewhere—is that once an agreement is in place with an individual, very little flexibility or adviser discretion is possible in order to prevent the imposition of a sanction where something cannot be met. The example I gave earlier has been resolved, and I am very grateful for the Minister’s offer to intervene. In that case, because there was an agreed number of job interviews that had to be attended, when the mother ended up having to go to hospital, she became subject to sanction. There is a point in the process where an individual becomes subject to sanction for not being able to meet an agreed requirement due to unforeseen circumstances, not due to deliberate non-compliance with a plan. That is where the challenge lies.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that, and obviously that is a highly relevant and pertinent point. This is why we should not undermine the autonomy of those local decision makers by putting things in binding statutory guidance. They need to be supported, and the Department needs to support them to offer that flexibility as well. We all recognise that personal circumstances and individual circumstances change. I am pleased to hear that the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned has been resolved, but of course we want to avoid such situations in the first instance. We can only achieve that if work coaches work with the individual claimant and understand their circumstances. Obviously, the claimant needs to be very up front and say that their circumstances are changing and explain what is going on, because life is not one-size-fits-all for everybody and obviously circumstances change.
Emily Thornberry
Of course I understand that local jobcentres ought to reflect local demand, but I ask the Minister to focus on the question of what would be wrong with having it set out in the regulations that a lone parent should not be obliged to go into work or look for work if there is an inadequate number of suitable employment vacancies within reasonable daily travelling distance of the claimant’s home. The six examples that I listed in amendment 133 give flexibility and at least give a baseline of fairness and do not allow people simply to have ultimate power over small children and single parents.
Priti Patel
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s latter point. Importantly, the labour market changes. Vacancies come up every day of the week. It is relevant to the individual, their circumstances and the ability for them to choose what they feel is best for them. They might want to be in training, which might be, for example, 30 minutes or an hour or require some travel. There might be a work placement or a work experience opportunity. It is right with the labour market flexibilities that we have those flexibilities in place. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, if an individual is unable to meet the requirements—this relates to the local flexibilities—they would come into the jobcentre to explain why that is the case and that is therefore fed into the process.
Neil Coyle
The challenge is that the flexibility does not exist now for individual advisers because of the system imposed towards the end of the previous Parliament. Individual advisers’ discretion was removed in order to have a more automated system that has developed into the experience of more sanctions. Is the Minister suggesting that that process will be reviewed or changed? Without that, the good intention will not be delivered in practice.
Priti Patel
Work coaches have the flexibility in universal credit to respond to individual circumstances and are using their discretion—
Priti Patel
I will not give way. Work coaches are using their discretion to tailor appropriate requirements without the need to set the types of support in regulations or to make guidance statutory. I have touched on this already; the Department routinely upgrades guidance, advice and training, and shares those resources not just locally, but with stakeholders. We want to have the highest possible standards and we are working to achieve that. Universal credit responds to individual circumstances. Accepting the amendments would result in an unnecessary, costly and overly bureaucratic imposition. It would not enhance the individual claimant’s choice, opportunities and the support that is made available to them through work coaches. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Emily Thornberry
We wish to push these amendments to a vote. I have listened carefully to the Minister and despite what she may say about local flexibilities, the national picture is that lone parents are having 39% of their sanctions decisions overturned on appeal. Therefore, the system is not fair. We want a better system in place with proper regulations that have legal standing.
The Chair
Just to be clear, amendment 101 would have to be put first. The hon. Lady could withdraw that and come to the others at the end of our deliberations on clause 15, which will only be a few moments away.
Emily Thornberry
That would probably be the best way of proceeding. We can vote on amendments 131, 132 and 133 but not on amendment 101. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Emily Thornberry
I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
‘(d) after section 24 (imposition of requirements) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to ensure that where a claimant is the responsible carer for a child who is aged under five they are subject to no work-related requirements unless it is possible to make arrangements for affordable and appropriate childcare for the claimant’s child.
(5B) The regulations in subsection (5A) must provide a definition of “affordable and appropriate childcare”.”’
This amendment would ensure that responsible carers of children aged under five would not be subject to work-related requirements unless they had affordable and appropriate childcare in place for their child.
The Chair
Amendment 93 will no longer be discussed with amendment 108. That might help the Minister in her response.
Emily Thornberry
We have begun to discuss some of the specific barriers faced by single parents who are looking for work, but we have not yet had a detailed discussion of what I, and I am sure most people, would consider to be the most significant barrier of all: childcare. It has been said that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and in many ways it is also true that there is no such thing as free childcare. Getting the universal entitlement to 15 hours, which in theory is available to all parents of children aged three and four, is often not quite as easy as it sounds. For a start, it usually is not free.
It is widely acknowledged that the difference between the rate at which the Government subsidise childcare providers and the actual cost of delivering care is substantial; substantial enough that charging for some services is the only way that providers can stay afloat. Parents know that that can happen in a range of different ways. Some are hit by hidden charges, such as being asked to pay for the cost of food or activities, while others—we have this situation in my constituency—are told that they cannot access their free hours unless they take additional paid hours as well, often at considerable cost.
The Lords Select Committee on Affordable Childcare completed an inquiry last year having heard extensive evidence. It concluded that
“parents are subsidising themselves, or other parents, in order to benefit from the Government’s flagship early education policy.”
I ask the Department for Work and Pensions yet again to look beyond the rhetoric at the evidence. The House of Lords Select Committee looked at this matter and said that it is serious.
In some cases, parents have even been told that the free 15 hours can be accessed only as part of a full-time placement. Full-time normally means 50 hours, which accounts for the early morning drop-off and early evening pick-up that is generally necessary for parents who work full time. To put in perspective the scale of the financial commitment that this could mean for parents, I looked at my local authority area in order to get a proper example. Childcare costs in Islington are among the highest in the country. A full-time place in a private nursery will set a parent back more than £18,000 a year, and what if you have two children? Let me tell Ministers that not all the low-income single parents from the Market estate have that kind of money to spare. Even if they worked full-time for the London living wage, fees at that level would exceed their pre-tax salary.
I wonder if I can save the Minister some time by anticipating some of the arguments that she is likely to rehearse in response to my concerns.
Neil Coyle
May I bring my hon. Friend back to a point about zero-hours contracts? There is a significant concern that some of the people affected will be forced to take work that does not have a consistent or guaranteed income, and that in itself acts as a barrier to being able to access childcare.
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and important point. The fact is that the work that is likely to be available, particularly for single parents who have been out of the job market for some time and may well be vulnerable and lacking in confidence and who do not necessarily have the skills they need, is the sort of work that I illustrated my previous point with. It is likely to be peripheral work and zero-hours contracts. It is unlikely to be regular, and it is likely to be at the sort of hours when there are not a lot of nurseries open.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that even the 15 hours of free childcare, which is to be extended to 30 hours, is only for three and four-year-olds? I had to go to work when my children were a lot younger than that. Also, the low-welfare, high-wage economy that the Government are trying to achieve—and who could argue with that?—will unfortunately not include anyone who is under 25, as they are not to be granted the living wage. So in my circumstances—I had a child when I was 22—there would have been no help available to me to pay for childcare.
Emily Thornberry
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I want to talk about the Government’s proposal to extend free childcare to 30 hours a week for some parents, and I will explain why I just do not buy it. To begin with, let me raise the most obvious problem with the proposal. It sounds wonderful, but how on earth do the Government intend to deliver it? How are they going to deliver 30 hours a week? There is the Childcare Bill—all four pages of it—and it offers no clue. I have looked at it—it can be read in a moment. It is the most extraordinary piece of legislation. To be quite honest, it is the Tory party manifesto on green paper. It does not have any detail to it. It does not answer any of the questions that people are understandably asking. A number of pertinent questions were put on Second Reading by Peers from all sides of the House, and they referred to it repeatedly as a “skeleton”. They are very polite in the House of Lords.
That view was shared by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which expressed the concern in its scathing report on the Bill that
“it contains virtually nothing of substance beyond the vague ‘mission statement’ in clause 1(1)”,
and concluded:
“The remarkable imbalance between the provision that appears in the Bill itself and what is to be left to regulations, and the scarcity of explanation in the memorandum, has led us to question whether Members will be in a position to contribute meaningfully to debates at Committee Stage and Report Stage.”
Leaving aside what that says about the Conservatives’ attitude to democracy, it also says a great deal about how serious they are. They seek to force lone parents back into work, on the promise that at some stage there will be sufficient childcare for them to be able to work, but they cannot even produce a Childcare Bill that means anything, or give us any details that mean anything. As I said, they are very polite in the Lords, and perhaps we should follow their example, but we do not. We say that it is absolute nonsense. It is yet another example of empty rhetoric. The Government are playing with people’s lives, and they should be held to account for it.
Likewise, we find ourselves debating the same promise now. Members of this Committee find ourselves ill prepared to judge the consequences of the proposals in clause 15, because we simply do not know whether the promised 30 hours of free childcare will be available when people go to work. It is immediately obvious when we start to scratch the surface of the 30 hours commitment that the policy is not funded to any meaningful level.
So we have a Bill that does not mean anything. Now let us look at the funding. The Government figures suggest, and the Minister has repeated in this debate—with a straight face, for which I commend her—that extending the entitlement to 30 hours of free childcare a week will cost £365 million in the first year, unless I am wrong. It seems that that is still the position. I do not know how that figure was calculated. We have a man from the Treasury here—the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury—and I would be pleased to sit down and listen to his explanation of how all that childcare will be provided for £365 million a year. [Interruption.] For the record, no explanation is forthcoming.
Interestingly, that figure differs substantially from the estimate made by the Conservative party of my party’s quite similar policy proposal in 2013. When we said that we wanted to extend free childcare to 25 hours a week for working families, what did the Childcare Minister, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), estimate our costs would be? He did not say £365 million; he did not say £665 million; he did not say £1 billion. He said that it would cost £1.6 billion, yet the Minister has tried to persuade us today that producing 30 hours a week of childcare for so many children will cost a mere £365 million a year through her non-existent Bill. Please excuse us if we are somewhat sceptical of the Government’s promises that they can produce that childcare.
Although we can have a laugh about it, mothers of four-year-olds on the Market estate will be threatened with sanctions unless they are actively looking for work and get a job, on the promise that there will be childcare. There will not be childcare that is affordable for them on the wages that they can expect given the type of work that is available for them. That is the reality of life, and that is why policies should be made on the basis of evidence and not rhetoric. The truth is hard.
Neil Coyle
It is worse than empty rhetoric; it is empty legislation. We have seen the same thing in social care legislation. The Government committed to providing additional support for families desperately in need of social care, but when it came to implementation, there were delays. The difference in these circumstances is that many families will be left without sufficient support but with mandatory requirements and sanctions.
Emily Thornberry
That brings me back to the purpose of the amendment. If the Minister is as confident as she seems that it will cost only £365 million, not £1.6 billion —even though the Childcare Bill includes no plan for delivery and we have not heard any plan, she seems to think that it is backed up with sufficient funding and is entirely realistic—why not back our amendment? We are simply saying, “Don’t push single parents into work until there is childcare available.” If she is so confident that childcare will be available, what is the problem with supporting our amendment?
It is nonsense. In a report published last week, the Institute for Public Policy Research criticised the Government and their costing, saying that it was
“inexplicably low in comparison to other estimates, as well as to current funding.”
The inevitable outcome, the report suggests, is:
“The Government’s drastic underfunding gives rise to concerns that the hourly rates that it will give to providers to deliver this care will be too low, resulting in falling quality, poorer outcomes for children and less choice for parents as the market shrinks.”
The report also raises concerns that will be familiar to anyone who has followed debates on the issue in recent years, about the likelihood that the Government will seek to make up for the additional strain by simply loosening regulations. I have asked the Government how they can proceed with these welfare reforms without expecting families to live in cars, but I ask another question: how do they expect all those children to be looked after for such a relatively small amount of money without being put in barns? Perhaps there will be factory-farmed three-year-olds. How will the Government be able to look after all those youngsters on such a small amount of money? We have yet to see any plan for how it will be done, and we simply do not believe the Government.
Will providers be expected to relax their ratios of staff to children, spreading themselves even more thinly? It has caused some alarm among providers, to say the least, and it has caused quite a lot of alarm among parents and the wider public, unsurprisingly, given that we know about the link between the quality of childcare and low ratios of staff to children. If the Government press ahead with their proposals, even the best-qualified staff will struggle to provide an adequate standard of care.
Professor Cathy Nutbrown said in evidence to the Lords Committee last year that
“no matter how many PhDs you have, you can only hold so many babies.”
To put it simply, the Government are asking us in clause 15 simply to trust them. “Trust us,” they say, “We will provide 30 hours of free childcare. It will be available at some point in the future.” Well, we do not trust the Government on that. The Childcare Bill is not a credible piece of legislation, and the trust that we have been asked to place in the Government has not been earned. Frankly, they might as well have brought a Bill promising a land full of milk and honey, for all the credibility that the Childcare Bill has.
If I am wrong—I hope that I am—and the Minister is right, and if 30 hours childcare is about to be available free for all working parents; if everything is fine, and it is good-quality childcare that is available in the hours when people can work, then she should support our amendment. We have been discussing safeguards to prevent conditionality from being applied to parents in inappropriate circumstances, and amendment 108 provides a way to do so that is straightforward and clear. It provides simply that single parents will not be forced to look for work in the absence of affordable and appropriate childcare. If she is so confident, she should back up her confidence by supporting our amendment. There is no good reason to oppose it.
As I have outlined, there are many doubts about the promises that have been made. I understand that the Minister is leading the childcare taskforce herself, so she should be more confident than anyone else, and she should be able to say in this debate, “You’re right, Emily Thornberry. I’m going to show you just how confident I am. I’m going to instruct my Back Benchers to support the Labour amendment.” Not supporting the amendment will show that not even the Minister believes in her childcare policy.
Priti Patel
We have been very clear that to support our full employment ambition, the Government are committed to helping working families by reducing the cost of childcare and making it easier for parents to return to work and to work more hours while knowing, importantly, that their children will be well cared for. That is why we have introduced the Childcare Bill, which will increase the level of free childcare from 15 to 30 hours for all working parents of three and four-year-olds. That will be available in some areas as early as September 2016, with further roll-out from September 2017. Clearly, however, that is only one element of a comprehensive package of childcare support available to parents up and down the country.
The existing offer provides 15 hours of early years education for all three and four-year olds and for disadvantaged two-year-olds. That is in addition to the other Government support for childcare, including, as the hon. Lady mentioned, the universal credit childcare element, which will cover 85% of eligible childcare costs from April next year. Let me emphasise again to the Committee that no matter how few hours parents work, they will have their costs covered—that is 85%.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. That is expected to help about 500,000 additional families at a cost of £350 million a year—that cost is specific to the universal credit childcare element.
On top of that, parents will have the option to claim tax-free childcare, which will help up to 1.8 million families, who will be able to benefit by up to £2,000 per child per year, or £4,000 for disabled children. We have also secured additional funding to allow jobcentre work coaches to address barriers to employment and to support moves into work. The extra funding may be used in a variety of ways to pay for travel and childcare, to enable parents, such as lone parents, to undertake training, attend interviews or start work.
We recognise that we have to continue to do more, but—just to put this on the record—this Government has a proud record on childcare provision, in particular in the previous Parliament, when we increased the start-up grants to increase childcare supply in the marketplace. That totalled up to £2 million available to people to set up new childcare businesses. We now have about 32,000 good or outstanding childcare minders who have been supported and are now eligible through early education funding. We have made it simpler and easier for schools and childcare providers to work together to increase the amount of childcare available on school sites. Last week, we made the announcement of wraparound childcare. We have also legislated for the creation of childminder agencies, which will improve the support available for childminders and parents. We have simplified the framework so that nurseries may expand more easily.
On top of that, the Government are spending in excess of £5 billion in the childcare market, which is important first to increase the sufficiency of supply, and secondly to focus on quality. The quality continues to improve, with 85% of providers declared good or outstanding by Ofsted, which compares with 70% in 2010. The qualifications of early-years staff continued to improve in 2014. The National Day Nurseries Association reported that 88% of settings that it surveyed employed a graduate, up from 80%, and that 87% of staff had good A-level equivalent qualifications. Now we have the early-years foundation stage profile results for 2013-14, which show an 8 percentage point increase in the number of children reaching a good level of development by the age of five. That also applies to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
It is fair to say, therefore, that we are not embarrassed at all. It is pretty sad to hear the Opposition, although they are entitled to their views, portray the Government as not doing enough on childcare and not supporting working families on childcare—
Priti Patel
I will not give way. The Opposition are completely wrong. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury mentioned the childcare taskforce, which has been set up by the Prime Minister across the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education. We are working with a wide variety of stakeholders, including childcare providers and the third sector—they are members of the taskforce. The Childcare Bill places a statutory duty on local authorities to publish information on childcare and other services available to parents locally, ensuring transparency for parents.
Importantly, funding was mentioned. Of course, funding continues to be one of the areas where more work is taking place in Government. A funding consultation is taking place, led by the Department for Education. Of course, we are working with the DFE. We made great progress in the last Parliament to increase parental employment, particularly with lone parents. The number of children in workless households has decreased.
Obviously, there is more we can do. We will continue to ensure that we provide affordable and appropriate childcare in the right settings, and that the availability is there. The Government firmly believe that we need to do more rather than less to support parents with young children to prepare for work. Childcare is one of those vital strands. Ultimately, it helps to improve children’s life chances as well. The clauses, together with our substantial investment in childcare, support that ambition. That is why I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendment.
Emily Thornberry
I thank the Minister for her response. If I had been allowed to intervene, I would have asked her whether she could help us on a specific point, which is probably important. The commitment is to childcare once parents are working, but for many parents, particularly if we are talking about parents of a very young child, to be able to find work, it may well be that children will need to have childcare—from the 20 hours, or whatever the commitment is—so that their parents can apply for jobs, go to interviews, fill in CVs and do voluntary work to prepare for work. Will there be any childcare available for parents who are looking for work, particularly when their children are young? If she is not able to answer me today, could she write to me about that, because I am not clear from her earlier answer whether she covered that matter or not?
Neil Coyle
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly in light of the Minister’s refusal to give way to her. That was a shame, because some of the points that the Minister made are very welcome. What was frustrating was that there was no figure for the number of children. If £365 million is being provided, it would be helpful if the Government could indicate how many children that is expected to support.
Emily Thornberry
There might be another question. Although the Minister has raised tax-free childcare, it probably needs to be pointed out at some stage—perhaps I might point it out now—that tax-free childcare is available only for people not claiming tax credits. It is not of any benefit to people on low incomes.
In light of the response that the Government have given us, we will not withdraw the amendment, and I wish to put it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Colleagues, we now come to a little bit of a vote-fest. I have a note that amendments 140, 63, 131, 132 and 133 can now be put in that order. Is anyone aware of any other amendments that they are looking to press to a Division?
The Chair
You cannot speak again, I am afraid; just move it formally.
Amendment proposed: 140, in clause 15, page 14, line 38, at end insert—
“(d) in section 22(1) after “section” insert “, except if the claimant is the responsible carer of a disabled child aged 3 or 4.
(1B) The Secretary of State must lay regulations determining what a disabled child is for the purpose of this section and may include, but will not be limited to a child—
(a) in receipt of an Education, Health and Care Plan,
(b) in receipt of a Statement of Special Educational Needs,
(c) identified by their local authority as having special educational needs,
(d) with child in need status,
(e) meeting the definition of disabled under the Equality Act 2010.”—(Neil Coyle.)
To exempt a responsible carer of a disabled child aged 3 or 4 from all work-related requirements.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Shailesh Vara)
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 16, page 15, line 4, leave out “pay mortgage interest in relation to property” and insert—
“make owner-occupier payments in respect of accommodation”
This amendment replaces the description of the payments for which loans may be made with a reference to “owner-occupier payments” relating to the accommodation that persons occupy as their homes. The term will be defined in regulations (see amendment 116). This amendment also ensures that there is flexibility to provide support as regards all possible dwellings.
Mr Vara
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. For the sake of good order, may I refer colleagues to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests to the extent that anything therein applies and ought to be declared?
I welcome the new members to the Committee and I wish well those who served on it before, particularly the right hon. Member for East Ham, who spoke eloquently in his contributions here and will be sorely missed on the Front Bench of the Labour party.
The clauses will change the way in which claimants with outstanding mortgages receive help from income-related benefits. I will be absolutely clear at the outset. The Government remain committed to helping owner-occupiers in times of need to avoid the risk of repossession. However, we believe it is wrong that taxpayers who are unable to afford to buy a home of their own are subsidising claimants who own their own homes. Taxpayers support a significant asset from which many homeowners are able to profit. It is our intention that help towards mortgage interest payments should be taken in the form of an interest-bearing loan that will be recovered from available equity once the property is sold. In that way, we will be able to provide a better deal for the taxpayer while ensuring that claimants receive the protection from repossession that they currently enjoy.
Moreover, the amendments will ensure that we do not exclude claimants who have non-standard financing arrangements from the offer of a loan, for example where a person has entered into what are referred to as alternative financial arrangements for purchasing their property rather than a traditional mortgage.
Emily Thornberry
I am listening with care to the Minister because the change is radical compared with how things were done until now. I want to be clear about this. He has talked about the importance of protection from repossession, but can he confirm that the clause extends the period during which there is no assistance available when someone becomes unemployed from 13 to 39 weeks? Would it not make it more likely that homes will be repossessed if mortgage companies get no money at all for 39 weeks?
Mr Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to make that point. She will be aware that, before the introduction of 13 weeks in 2009, the period was 39 weeks. There was a specific reason why it was reduced by the then Government to 13 weeks: it was the height of the recession. It was very difficult to get jobs and it was felt necessary to make that adjustment. The economic climate now is a lot different from what it was in 2009. When there are record levels of employment —unemployment is very low—and when we have the prospect of an economy that is recovering, we feel the time period should be brought back to what it was previously. There was no concern when there was a 39-week period when there were better economic circumstances. With the economy picking up, we feel that, as 39 weeks was fine in the past under a Labour Government, there is no reason why it should not continue under a Conservative Government.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister says that he feels 39 weeks will be fine because it was fine under a Labour Government before the recession, but is the change to policy based on any evidence? Can the Government point us to any impact assessment or other information that will reassure us that homelessness will not be increased?
Neil Coyle
It is interesting that the Minister has absolute confidence in economic stability, but it is not shared by everyone. House prices are rising and falling at different rates, and different job opportunities are available, in different parts of the country. May I be the first to offer the Minister the moniker of Minister for repossessions?
Neil Coyle
It has been a long day. My point is that the Minister will become known as the Minister for repossessions as a result of a retrograde step. Labour changed that policy in government to ensure that, having contributed to benefits through national insurance, people had support if and when they needed it. The Government are taking that support away and the Minister will become known as the Minister for repossessions.
Mr Vara
May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House of Commons, that, if he wishes to survive, he will have to get used to being called a lot of things?
We intend to ensure that, through the regulations, we cover financial arrangements alternative to traditional mortgages. The amendments will also ensure that claimants who live in non-traditional homes, such as houseboats or caravans, will also be offered a loan. It is important that support is available to protect the homes of all individuals, regardless of the type of accommodation they occupy. The amendments ensure that the technical detail about calculating the amount of a person’s liabilities to make owner-occupier payments, and the maximum amount of those liabilities that can be met with a loan, will be set out in regulations.
The amendments ensure that regulations made under clause 16 requiring security for a loan may make provision for situations where there are alternative financial arrangements for a home, and ensure that the security can be taken in respect of a legal or beneficial interest in the person’s home.
Clause 17 allows for the detailed framework within which loans may be made to be put in place by regulations. That will allow for the tactical operation of support for mortgage-interest loans, which will provide fairness for taxpayers along with protection from repossession for claimants. It will also continue the current administrative arrangements that mean that payments of support for mortgage interest go directly to the mortgage lender.
The amendments to clause 17 are consequential to the amendments to clause 16. They replace the description of the payments for which loans may be made with a reference to owner-occupier payments, which will be defined in regulations. They will ensure that the loan scheme will be available to eligible claimants who have acquired their home through alternative finance arrangements rather than through a traditional mortgage.
Amendment 120 seeks to clarify what requirements a person will have to meet before receiving a loan. It ensures that regulations under the clause may make provision about entering into agreements with persons receiving loans. The Secretary of State will be able to specify terms in the agreement that he thinks fit, subject to any terms set out in the regulations. That will ensure that the regulations do not have to include every term that is needed in the loan agreement.
Emily Thornberry
That is why I am trying to clear this up. I was asking whether the impact assessment contains anything in particular on the effect of the changes in this clause, particularly with regard to extending the time that will be available. People will have to wait 39 weeks before they get any assistance with their mortgage. Will that increase the amount of homelessness? That is an important piece of evidence that is sadly lacking when the Government are making proposals to extend the time period.
Although the Minister talks with great glee about full employment and this and that, he is changing the legislation so that, instead of people being given assistance to pay the interest on their mortgage, which has always been the system—the assistance pays not for the equity in a property but merely for the interest payments in order to keep people safe, warm and secure in a home—people will have to take out a loan against that property. Furthermore, the Government are changing the legislation so that people have to wait for an extraordinary, scary period of 39 weeks, during which they have to keep off those who actually own the property and who have mortgaged it to them. A person who has lost their job will suddenly have to fight off those who want to repossess the property.
In the real world, we all know that there may be a grace period, but 39 weeks is a very long grace period. My concern is that it will increase the amount of homelessness. Wrapping that together with the Government’s other housing policies, which are also having an adverse effect on homelessness, will increase the amount of homelessness. That is why I asked whether the impact assessment is helpful to the Government in reassuring all of us that the measure will not increase the amount of homelessness.
On the face of it, making a mortgage company wait 39 weeks will increase the number of repossessions. Frankly, if a mortgage company hears that someone has lost their job—the person might be in their late 50s—it might make an assessment and decide that that person is unlikely to get another job. There may be areas of Buckinghamshire, London and the home counties where it is relatively easy to get a job, but there are other areas across the country where, frankly, there are no jobs. The tragedy of Redcar, of course, is that when people lose their job, the chances of their being able to get another are practically nil. They certainly will not be able to get a job at a level that will help them to continue paying their mortgage.
Debbie Abrahams
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. In fact, the Money Advice Trust has made exactly the same point and has expressed its considerable concern about extending the period from 13 weeks to 39 weeks. The experience of all lenders and advice agencies is that early intervention is the key to resolving—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury has tabled an amendment that we will consider later in our proceedings on this very issue. She may not necessarily want to emphasise the point at this stage. The intervention has gone on long enough that she may want to respond to her own colleague and then perhaps give way to the Minister.
Emily Thornberry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I appreciate that I sound like a cracked record, but it is about evidence, evidence, evidence. What is the evidence that this change will help us? What is the evidence that this will not increase the number of repossessions? Give us evidence and we would be interested, glad and reassured to hear it.
On the face of it, if someone does not pay back any mortgage for 39 weeks, their mortgage company will kick them out. A steelworker in Redcar might have a good mortgage, a family home and a good family wage one week, but the next week, they could be made redundant and no longer be able to pay their mortgage. The Government will not give them any assistance for 39 weeks. They would have no job and no prospects, and things could suddenly turn very nasty and difficult. Thirty nine weeks is a long period. They might be able to get a zero-hours contract. All I can say to that is: good luck with paying off a mortgage on a zero-hours contract.
As we said at the beginning of these proceedings, although the Government want to use the terms of clause 1 to be able to get up and brag about full employment or the progress towards that, we know that the definition of employment seems to be any work at all. The definition of employment is not the living wage, a wage that a family can live on or a wage that people can use to pay their mortgage..
Mr Vara
I would make two brief comments. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has not said that the 39-week wait will drive repossessions. That is an eminently respected organisation, and it would have said if it felt that was the case. May I gently remind the hon. Lady that though she was not an MP at the time, the Labour Government from 1997 to 2009 maintained a 39-week waiting period? It seems ironic that what was suitable for a Labour Government for so many years is now felt to be inappropriate for this Government, particularly when our economic record is on the up and far better than it was under the previous Government.
Emily Thornberry
I was an MP in 2005, and the difference was that there was real investment going on, homes were being built and the economy was working properly as opposed to fumbling along as it currently is and seemingly being fuelled entirely by rhetoric. It is all very well for the Minister to assert until he is blue in the face that everything is well, everyone is working, everyone is getting a great wage and there are no problems, but that is not the reality of people’s lives.
Mr Vara
That is very helpful. As the Government amendment deals with houses, what I am about to say will be very relevant, particularly given what the hon. Lady said. She spoke about the huge amount of house building under the Labour Government when she was a Labour Member. May I remind her that the past five years have seen more affordable housing built than in the 13 years of the Labour Administration?
Emily Thornberry
No. I do not agree. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about the Council of Mortgage Lenders and its statement. I counter him with a statement from the Money Advice Trust:
“We strongly support the tabled Amendment 19, which would require that the waiting period before an application for a loan for mortgage interest can be made is retained at 13 weeks, instead of the proposed 39. Lenders and advice agencies alike know from experience that early intervention is the key to resolving financial difficulty. The proposed 39 weeks will mean that claimants will be well over six months in arrears with their mortgage by the time SMI starts to be paid—by which time it will be significantly more difficult for them to resolve their financial situation.”
There are arguments both ways.
It is important that we look at what will happen. The Government have said a great deal about pensioners, about how they will look after pensions, about the triple lock and about this Government being friendly to pensioners. Is not there a problem that this measure will affect pensioners as much as it will affect anyone else? The particular difficulty with pensioners is that if they are expected to take out a loan against their property instead of getting relief on the interest, increasingly they will lose ownership of that property. As pensioners it will be even more difficult for them to work. In fact, the idea of a pensioner is that they do not work. The policy will increasingly eat away at an asset that cannot be expanded.
Is that not an asset that, as a matter of social policy, the Government expect pensioners to use in many other ways? I will not get into a detailed debate about the cuts in social care. Let us just say that I think there have been cuts in social care. I am sure that the Minister thinks that social care is marvellous so let us leave it at that. Are not pensioners expected to be paying for their long-term care out of the asset that is their home?
Many pensioners may have been tempted by the Government’s deregulation of access to pension pots. Memorably, the previous Pensions Minister said that he would be intensely relaxed if people were to take their money out and spend it on a Bugatti or whatever it was. Of course, deregulation and the access to pension pots means that people will have access to their pension funds, which they will be able to spend in advance of their pension. They will be expected to use their houses to pay for social care and if they need assistance with paying off their mortgage, that mortgage will not be available for them in any other way; they will be expected continually to take out more of a loan on the equity of the property.
It seems that pensioners are getting it from every angle, which is very far from the rhetoric we heard at the party conference about how much the Tory party is a friend of pensioners. It is interesting that this is the first—I suspect it will not be the last—occasion in which the Government are changing the game. The Government say they want to help people make the right choices. Pensioners, of all people, may be unable to make choices. They are coming towards the end of their lives and their options are limited. They are expected to take yet another charge on the one asset of value that they have—to continually take out a loan on their property, which their children may be expecting to have to help pay off their student loans or to set up in life.
We have heard that the average age for people to set up their own home now is in their 30s. Quite often, they rely on their parents to be able to help. The rules are being changed for pensioners. This is blow No.1; we will see how many other blows there are for pensioners in the future. We will certainly ensure that pensioners hear the truth, which is that, despite the rhetoric, this Tory party which claims to be the friend of pensioners, is not. This is the first step in undermining all the promises the party made in its manifesto and at the last general election.
Mr Vara
I simply make two responses. On pensioners, the hon. Lady conveniently overlooks that it is often the case that the asset is increasing in value. She also overlooks that the loan will eventually be paid when the house is sold. It is therefore a question of balance, and we have to ask whether it is fair that those who do not own a property of their own are through their taxes helping to pay others who own an asset that is increasing in value.
As for healthcare, I simply say to the hon. Lady that for many of those securing help in healthcare there is unlikely to be an overlap in terms of the equity in their property, as many of them are mortgage-free and sometimes have a second income or another income. They would not probably qualify for SMI in the first place.
Amendment 110 agreed to.
Amendments made: 111, in clause 16, page 15, line 13, leave out
“amounts secured by a mortgage”
and insert “liabilities”.
This amendment and amendments 112, 113, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126 are consequential on amendment 110 which replaces the reference to mortgage interest payments with a reference to owner-occupier payments.
Amendment 112, in clause 16, page 15, line 16, leave out
“the mortgage relates to amounts used”
and insert
“a person’s liability to make owner-occupier payments was incurred”.
Amendment 113, in clause 16, page 15, line 18, leave out from “about” to “in” in line 19 and insert “—
(a) determining or calculating the amount of a person’s liabilities;
(b) the maximum amount of a person’s liabilities”.
Amendment 114, in clause 16, page 15, line 24, after second “a” insert “mortgage of or”.
This amendment ensures that regulations under clause 16 about requiring security for a loan may make provision for situations where there is no pre-existing mortgage over the person’s home.
Amendment 115, in clause 16, page 15, line 24, at end insert
“a legal or beneficial interest in”.—(Mr Vara.)
This amendment makes clear that regulations under clause 16 about requiring security for a loan may make provision for security to be taken in respect of a legal or a beneficial interest in the person’s home.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Guy Opperman.)
Trade Union Bill (First sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I have a few preliminary points. Welcome to this Bill Committee. Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. We will then have a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. Please turn off your mobile phones. Banned substances such as tea and coffee are not allowed. I am sure that, in view of the time available, we can take these early motions without debate. As we are now sitting in a public session, it might be a good point for anyone who wishes to make a declaration of interest to do so now.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I declare my membership of Unison and my trade union activity over the past 20 years as a trade union activist prior to my election.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I declare my membership of Unite the union and my trade union membership and representation as a senior rep over the past 14 years.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I am a former Community trade union officer, current Community trade union member and chair of the Community parliamentary group.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I am a member of the GMB and a former trade union official.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Prior to the election in May, I was a director and partner of Thompsons Solicitors LLP, which is giving evidence to the Committee. I am also the partner of the chief executive of Thompsons, who is giving evidence to the Committee. Clients of my former firm included the Royal College of Midwives, GMB, Unison and Unite, which are giving evidence to the Committee. Finally, I am a member of GMB and of Unison.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am a member of the GMB union, and I draw attention to my declaration on the register of interests.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 13 October) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 13 October;
(b) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 15 October;
(c) at 9.25am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 October;
(d) at 11.30am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 October;
(e) at 9.25am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 October;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
Date | Time | Witness |
|---|---|---|
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 10.15 am | Confederation of British Industry; British Chamber of Commerce; Arriva |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 10.45 am | Community; Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 11.15 am | Thompsons Solicitors; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 2.30 pm | 2020 Health |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 3.15 pm | London Travel Watch; Transport Focus |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 3.45 pm | Amnesty; Liberty; Blacklist Support Group |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 4.15 pm | TaxPayers’ Alliance; Abellio |
Tuesday 13 October | Until no later than 5.00 pm | Welsh Government; Scottish Government; Scottish Trade Union Congress |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 12 noon | National Police Chiefs’ Council; Police Federation |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 12.30 pm | SITA UK; London Fire Brigade |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 1.00 pm | Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 2.30 pm | Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College London |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 3.00 pm | Royal College of Nursing; Royal College of Midwives; Public and Commercial Services Union; Fire Brigades Union |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 4.15 pm | Unite; Unison; GMB; Trade Union Congress |
Thursday 15 October | Until no later than 5.00 pm | Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; Cabinet Office |
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 14; Schedules 1 and 2; Clauses 15 and 16; Schedule 3; Clauses 17 and 18; Schedule 4; Clauses 19 to 22; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 27 October. —(Nick Boles.)
The Chair
On the basis of the motion, the deadline for amendments to be considered at the first line-by-line sittings of the Committee on 20 October is Thursday 15 October.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Nick Boles.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Nick Boles.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. We will now go briefly into a private session—I apologise to the people sitting in the Public Gallery—to decide our line of questioning.
The Chair
Good morning and welcome to the Trade Union Bill. We are joined by John Cridland, who is the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, Dr Adam Marshall, who is executive director of policy and external affairs at the British Chambers of Commerce, and David Martin, who is chief executive of Arriva plc. This session will last until 10.15 am, so it will be fairly snappy. We will go from Opposition to Government side, and Members will take this as they wish.
Stephen Doughty
Q 1 First, may I say it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward? I welcome all members of the Committee to the evidence sessions and thank the witnesses for making themselves available this morning.
I have a few questions. My first is to the CBI and the BCC. The CBI specifically says in its written evidence that
“Business backs plans to modernise our industrial relations framework.”
Can you explain whether you think there is a unified view across business and industry in support of all the measures in the Bill? Given that you specifically refer to modernisation, do you—perhaps the BCC can answer this as well—support measures to introduce e-balloting and secure workplace balloting to increase participation in the most modern ways possible?
John Cridland: Thank you for that question. I believe the CBI does support the Bill, and I think the business community as a whole supports the Bill. Increasingly, the positive and constructive employee relations that we have built up over the economy are based on direct engagement with the workforce. We believe that there is a valuable role for trade unions but that the nature of trade union law needs to reflect the modern workplace in the way that I described—direct engagement.
I think the provisions in the Bill that are of most concern to businesses are those that ensure that where there is strike action—particularly in public utilities, education and health—it reflects a significant voice from the workforce. The fact that we are coming in with provisions similar to those in the statutory trade union recognition legislation, which has worked well and effectively for a number of years, reflects the sort of mandate of support that business, if it is to be significantly disrupted by the action I described, needs to see reflected. In principle, I think these are the right provisions.
On your particular question of e-balloting, we do not think at the moment the evidence is there that e-balloting can be secure and effective. We do not have a problem in principle with e-balloting, but it is probably premature to have it available.
Stephen Doughty
Q 2 May I follow up on that point? Even though e-balloting is used by a number of banks, building societies and other organisations, you do not believe that it is secure.
John Cridland: The need to protect the privacy of an individual trade union member voting is important to their employer, and we would want more assurance that that could be effectively conducted. Clearly, even in relation to some of the professional services that you just described, there are significant issues about data privacy.
Dr Adam Marshall: Thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning and to answer the question. It is our belief—fairly similar to that of my colleague from the CBI—that the right to withhold labour needs to be balanced in its application with the right of others to continue to work or to receive essential services, so we support strongly the provisions in the Bill that raise thresholds, for example, and ensure that essential public services are subjected to additional thresholds. It is our belief, however, that questions around the method of balloting are probably for the Government, the trade unions and the Opposition to have a debate over, rather than for us in business to have a debate over. Our concern is principally about the elements of the Bill that help to raise thresholds and ensure that the right to work is balanced with the right to withhold labour.
Stephen Doughty
Q 3 Do you accept that industrial action is at a 30-year low? Therefore, why is there a need to tighten up the legislation in such a draconian way as the Bill proposes?
Dr Adam Marshall: I think the statistics measure the number of days lost directly to industrial action. They do not measure the number of days lost indirectly because of industrial action, and what our members have asked us to represent is that those days lost to industrial action are significant. They affect business, productivity, the right of individuals to earn a living and access to public services. Were one able to make the argument that the number of days lost both directly and indirectly had gone down, that might be different, but a lot of people are significantly affected by strike action, hence our support for those provisions in the Bill to raise thresholds.
Stephen Doughty
Q 4 Mr Martin, can you tell us about your experience of industrial relations? There have been a number of high-profile cases where there have been findings against Arriva in its relations with union members and others. Can you tell us a little bit about your company’s experience and why you think this Bill is so necessary?
David Martin: Good morning. Arriva recognises that employees have the right to belong to trade unions, and we recognise a number of different trade unions. We pride ourselves totally on the fact that we are there to deliver highly satisfied employees to deliver services to highly satisfied passengers. We carry about 6 million people a day across the UK on buses and trains.
Frankly, I am extremely proud of the fact that we work very closely with our trade unions on the overall strategic direction of the business. We paint out and include them as a deliverer in the context of developing the strategy over a three-year or five-year timeframe, and that has worked extremely well for us. We all recognise the issues in the overall UK economy and the global economy, and the impact of fuel prices and so on. The ability to work closely with our trade unions has generated a situation where we have had a very low level of disputes over the past 30 years, certainly to my knowledge.
The only interesting disputes, which lead me to support the Bill, have been the London bus strikes this year and the issues in London in 2012 surrounding the Olympics, where the whole issue was union-led rather than membership-led. It was not a dispute within the membership. The fact that 17% of my staff voted and 50% of the buses did not run in London over that period of time shows us that we need a failsafe, and this Bill delivers that failsafe. In the event that industrial relations issues arise, there needs to be a clear mandate from the trade unions.
Stephen Doughty
Q 5 Do you accept broadly, though, that the vast majority of strikes in the transport sector have met the thresholds as envisaged by this Bill, including those in the rail and bus sectors?
David Martin: In the rail sector, yes, I would say that they probably have, so I do not think that it will make that much difference. In the bus sector, no; it is very different.
The Chair
I do not want to be too formal and restrict people to one question, and the main Opposition spokesman needs some latitude, but just keep an eye on the time everybody, and if you can just ask one question, fine. All three witnesses do not have to answer everybody; you can divide it up between yourselves.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Q 6 It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The Bill has already been described by Mr Doughty as “draconian”. Can you give me your impression of how much this is a fundamental change to the way that trade unions operate and how much you think it is more of a step-by-step increase in the modernisation of the trade union movement?
John Cridland: I echo Mr Martin’s comment about a failsafe. In most workplaces, relations are harmonious. Most workplaces are now not unionised, but in the unionised part of workplaces, most relationships are harmonious, and employers recognise that. There is a small minority of situations, which we have already described, where many people—businesses and consumers —are significantly disrupted. If that is to happen, and if the right to strike is to be exercised, I think it is reasonable, given the level of disruption involved, that there is clear evidence of a significant mandate. That is a modernisation of a system that is broadly working well.
Dr Adam Marshall: I would probably agree with my colleague and simply add that having an expiry for ballot mandates is an important thing in this day and age, given that we are in a more complex world for both business and industrial relations than perhaps ever before. Having a clear mandate renewed on a regular basis is very important.
David Martin: I again echo the comments. I can only refer to what I said earlier—that in the event of a breakdown in industrial relations, which does not happen very often, let us have a very clear mandate that reflects the wishes of the membership as a whole, and let us have a situation where we can minimise the overall impact on the travelling public and the UK economy at the same time.
Chris Stephens
Q 7 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My question is for the CBI. First, I was a bit unclear in your answer to my colleague about secure workplace balloting. You have said that trade union recognition ballots work well, but in trade union recognition ballots there is scope for secure workplace balloting. Can you clarify that?
Secondly, in your submission, you say that you are looking to extend the notice periods from seven days to 14 days on either side. That is 28 days in total, even without a ballot period. Do you not think that seven days’ notice to ballot and seven days’ notice to strike, with a period in between of at least 14 working days, is sufficient for a business to look at what they need to do and the steps that need to take place for disruption and any industrial action?
John Cridland: Thank you for the question. On your first point, the analogy I was using for trade union recognition was with ballot majorities. That is a relevant point, I think, about the ballot majorities and thresholds that the Government are proposing for the Bill. The current notice periods are inadequate. Many corporate members of the CBI faced with these situations simply do not feel that they have enough time to provide information and to put in place mitigating measures. I think the business community does want to see longer notice periods.
Chris Stephens
Q 8 Part of the difficulty, though, is that the notice for compulsory redundancy is now 45 days. The danger of the Bill—I am curious to hear your views on this—is that trade unions will have to ballot right away when an employer issues a statutory redundancy notice, because it is now 45 days. Given the timescale, does it not worry you that there will actually be more balloting, rather than less?
John Cridland: For employers, we are trying to get the principle of clear consent. If a trade union and its members are going to withdraw their labour, which is clearly their right, we want to see evidence of consent in those situations. The difficulty with the current legislation is that it can leave employers faced with a situation where there is a low turnout—we have already heard the situation that Dr Marshall described of a ballot, prior to a situation where the ballot was some period before. These are not giving clear signals to the employer. So the spirit of our evidence is, “Can we have a system that both in time and in signalling makes it much clearer to the employers the nature of the dispute, and allows the employer to deal with that?” That is what we are after.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Q 9It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Dr Marshall, you raised the point about productivity, and I just want to ask about some of the wider economic impact of the Bill, if it is passed—in particular, the impact on investment, including inward investment, and on making the UK an attractive place to invest, and perhaps, Mr Martin, in terms of your industry, on whether having greater confidence about industrial relations will enable you to have stronger management and therefore attract more investment into it.
Dr Adam Marshall: Many thanks for the question. Undoubtedly, businesses that believe that the framework for industrial relations is modern and secure will be more confident when it becomes time to invest, particularly in those industries, such as the one represented by Mr Martin, that are affected by some of the enhanced thresholds that this Bill puts in place.
We have been very supportive of the definition of which areas should fall under those enhanced thresholds, in part because those businesses are extremely capital-intensive and do things that are extremely important to the functioning of the broader business community. So whether we are talking about transport, the delivery of energy supplies and indeed—vis-à-vis the supply of future skills—whether we are talking about the education sector, these are things that have a huge knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. So we believe that these measures are proportionate to help with that particular challenge.
Vis-à-vis our attractiveness to overseas businesses, one only needs to look at the media impact of transport strikes in London—how they are reported—and what you see are the knock-on effects on the economy of this particular area, and of course we have seen that played out in other cities as well, right across the UK. That has a deterrent effect on would-be investors, and I think that we would see that deterrent effect being lessened with a modernised system.
James Cartlidge
Q 10 Mr Martin has obviously had some experience of industrial action. If his management were more confident in the future that there would be less disruption, would that enable his company to attract more investment, to expand and all those things that we want to see across industry?
David Martin: Undoubtedly. It is an obvious statement but investment is all about confidence, and confidence breeds a situation where, from my viewpoint, effective trade union relationships and effective employee relations are a fundamental part of what we do. We employ 60,000 people all across Europe—25,000 people in the UK—and those relations are fundamental to us. And we deliver passenger journeys to more than 2 billion people a year, so we are fundamentally a massive part of overall GDP in local areas and in national areas. Clearly, if confidence is higher, then investment undoubtedly will reflect that.
Would that be a major issue? Frankly, I would say that it would not be, because it would not stop us investing. It is up to us as a management team to manage our industrial relations practices, but if it all goes wrong and it comes to it, I think it is absolutely fair that a proper mandate is there with our trade union colleagues to leverage their position on behalf of the employees.
The Chair
If you want to ask a question, try to give us plenty of warning, so that we can fit you all in. It is going well at the moment; I hope that we will get everyone in.
Ian Mearns
Q 11 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
From the perspective of the three witnesses, what are the main drivers of supporting this Bill? We have heard that industrial action involving strike action is at a 30-year low, but the witness from the British Chambers of Commerce has said that industrial action has an impact, for instance, on productivity. Does strike action have a detrimental impact on productivity that is as bad as other factors in the economy, for instance, bearing in mind that, overall, British workers are about 25% behind French workers in terms of productivity? Is it factors such as industrial action that are causing that 25% gap? I doubt it, given the 30-year low in strike action. I also wonder whether you are really supporting this Bill just because it is an opportunist-type thing—the opportunity presents itself, and therefore we might as well go gung-ho and support it.
The Chair
You can answer any way you want.
David Martin: I will happily respond to that one. In my sector, which is the delivery of a public service, passengers rely on buses or trains to get to work, school, leisure activities and retail outlets, where they spend money. I think it is fundamentally wrong if there is not a clear mandate from the workforce when taking up a dispute with the employer. Assuming that the legislation goes through, the modernisation of the process to provide clarity and a practical, working situation can only be beneficial.
Ian Mearns
Q 12 But in your evidence you gave two London examples. Are we using a national sledgehammer to crack a London nut?
David Martin: From my perspective, it is a failsafe. If things go wrong and disputes arise, having a strong trade union relationship, and a strong trade union leadership with a strong mandate, leverages the employee’s position to negotiate with the employer. I think it is a win-win, frankly.
John Cridland: The concern in the business community has always been about disruption. I have the privilege of speaking for an organisation that represents 190,000 companies, and clearly the overwhelming majority of those companies are small. As small businesses, they are consumers, too. When getting their products to market and their employees to work, disruption is the factor that impacts on their business. That has been CBI policy for more than five years, so it is not opportunistic. We have advocated this sensible modernisation for more than five years.
Ian Mearns
Q 13 Do you agree that the CBI has a major concern about the impact on productivity and that there are clearly other factors in the economy that are impacting more on productivity at the moment than industrial action?
John Cridland: I would not underestimate the impact of significant disruption in the running of an economy on the overall performance of the economy, but the argument I have made is one primarily related to disruption. I agree that productivity relates to a range of factors. It is a cocktail of factors, of which this is only one.
Dr Adam Marshall: I would simply add that the vast majority of my members are in 52 accredited chambers of commerce the length and breadth of the United Kingdom outside the M25, so business support for some of the measures in the Bill is not a London phenomenon.
On productivity, I raised the statistics very early because arguments are made about this Bill using only statistics that count direct days lost to industrial action. Had National Statistics been collecting information on the indirect effects of industrial action for many years, we could have a much more informed argument. I know that when millions of people are out of the workplace because they cannot get to work, and when millions of people are at home because their children are out of school, for example, there will be a productivity impact. I completely agree with you that that does not mean that the productivity per hour gap between the average British worker and the average French worker is entirely down to this, but there is certainly an impact.
Ian Mearns
Q 14 In the aftermath of this session, will you write to us to present us with the evidence you have to back up those statements?
Dr Adam Marshall: I would be very happy to look at what evidence is available. As I say, the statistics collected by National Statistics are not acceptable.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Q 15 Thank you all very much for being here. I am sure that everyone here agrees that the intimidation of non-striking workers and illegal activity on picket lines is wrong and that it is concerning to read reports of that. What are your experiences of picketing from an employer perspective? What are your thoughts on the current status of the code of practice and the provisions in the Bill to put that on a statutory footing? Do you think it does enough to reduce the concerns that some of us might have about behaviour in this area?
John Cridland: The principal concern of business is where picketing action does not fit in with the code. Generally, I think the code works well. The Bill contains a sensible provision to bring legal recognition to the part of the code that it covers, and I think the major provision in the Bill that would impact on picketing is the requirement to have an official who is clearly responsible, and who the employer knows to be responsible, for the actions of the picket line, which is something that employers welcome. I think that is a relatively moderate change to the existing legislation. It builds on a code that has served us well.
Julie Elliott
Q 16 As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
Dr Marshall, I want to come back to something you have just said. What evidence are you referring to when you talk about all the indirect days lost? You have referred to that quite considerably in your evidence, but you then said that you looked to see what there is. Do you have any evidence?
You have also talked at length about what your members think. Can you advise the Committee on what surveys or interaction you have had with your members on the Bill and what came out as their top five priorities? Do the features in the Bill figure in that?
Dr Adam Marshall: Thank you for the question. The point that I have been trying to make and will make again is this: I would very much like the Office for National Statistics to begin collecting more data on the indirect impact of industrial action on the wider economy.
Julie Elliott
Q 17 So you have no statistics?
Dr Adam Marshall: The point that I made right at the beginning was that I want those statistics to be available. Vis-à-vis member surveys, we have not surveyed on this specific topic.
Julie Elliott
Q 18 And the second part of my question about your membership?
Dr Adam Marshall: I said that, vis-à-vis member surveys, we have not surveyed on this particular topic.
Julie Elliott
Q 19 To follow that up, you have said at length in all your evidence on this point that you are representing the views of your membership on this, but how can you say that if you have not surveyed members and asked them the question?
Dr Adam Marshall: We have a range of submissions and a range of comments made to us by chamber councils up and down the country. Like other business organisations, we take both formal and informal soundings of our businesses and we have done so on an informal basis.
Julie Elliott
Q 20 So this is subjective evidence that you are talking about? You have not specifically had any direct comments on this because you have not asked the question?
Dr Adam Marshall: We have had direct comments to us.
Julie Elliott
Q 21 Have you asked the question?
Dr Adam Marshall: Not in a survey format. Not in a quantitative format, but qualitatively, yes.
Julie Elliott
Q 22 So this is subjective evidence, with no objective evidence to back up what you are saying?
Dr Adam Marshall: That is your characterisation of it.
Julie Elliott
Q 23 Is that correct?
Dr Adam Marshall: I am sure there is evidence.
Julie Elliott
Q 25 It does not exist?
Dr Adam Marshall: As I said, it is evidence that has been gathered through qualitative means and not through hard evidence.
Julie Elliott
Q 26 Does it exist to present to the Committee, to write to us about, to show us?
Dr Adam Marshall: I have nothing to present to you in writing at the moment.
The Chair
Normally, we would go to the Government and then to Labour, but I do not want to be too formal. If somebody is bursting to ask a really telling supplementary, they can come in. I think Steve Doughty is burning to ask a question.
Stephen Doughty
Q 27 Just to follow on this point specifically, I am also concerned about the lack of evidence. We have a bit of evidence here that findings from the 2011 workplace employment relations survey revealed that despite an increase in public sector strikes in 2010-11, only 3% of managers were experiencing any disruption as a result of strikes in another workplace. So that is a piece of evidence and I wonder if you or the CBI have any comments on that: very low levels of industrial action and then very low levels of disruption shown in an actual survey, actually evidenced in figures, unlike some of the comments that we have heard from the panel.
John Cridland: If you think of a strike in education, for example, like last year with schools, most employees in most workplaces in the affected area have to provide alternative childcare arrangements. How is that caught in national surveys? It is very difficult to capture—a point that Dr Marshall made. How is that aggregated in employer surveys? It is very difficult.
Stephen Doughty
Q 28 With respect, you are saying that it is very difficult, but you and Dr Marshall are making some very broad statements about this issue without having evidence to back them up. That is what I do not understand. It is a very broad assertion to make.
John Cridland: I think it is just a law of common sense that if a school is closed, every working parent in that school has to make alternative arrangements.
Stephen Doughty
Q 29 But we are talking about the economy as a whole.
John Cridland: With respect, I was using the illustration of a strike in education. Most working parents have to make alternative arrangements.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Q 30 You talked about work environments modernising and work practices modernising. I think one of the big changes in the last decade or so is the fact that people want more confidence in companies and public bodies, which means that they have to be more transparent and accountable. One of the clauses in the Bill wants to bring trade union practice up to date with existing best practices as public bodies have to publish all spending over £500. Do you agree with that?
John Cridland: The CBI has concentrated on the core parts of the Bill that most affect our membership, which are the strike thresholds and the confidence around strike arrangements. We support the Bill as a whole but we would leave those other arrangements for the Government to determine through Parliament and the certification officer. Those are probably not the aspects of the Bill that most employers would have at the front of their minds.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 31 Going back to Stephen’s question about the clause, where you are saying that you want trade unions to support a Bill that has a clause providing that there should be more transparency on trade union spending. That is possibly one of the areas in this country which shows the most transparency on spending. You have then come here, and Dr Marshall has given evidence to this Committee, providing no evidence for your statements. Do you think that may undermine your argument in support of the Bill? You are asking for that type of legislation to be put through, but we still have not been given any objective evidence.
Going back to an earlier comment, Mr Cridland, you talked about concern about disruption and said that, to provide more confidence, you wanted to support this Bill to stop potential trade union actions, yet you also said that it was too difficult to investigate an illustrative example about striking workers in the education sector. Your colleague, Dr Marshall, also said that those investigations had not been conducted. What is the Committee supposed to believe? We are getting subjective statements, but not one of you can show us any objective investigation into your own members’ views on this matter.
John Cridland: With respect, I think that there are two separate points there. There is the mandate that we have to speak for the CBI as a representative body of the views of our companies. There is a separate issue of how the Office for National Statistics captures the impact of industrial action on the economy. I am responsible for the first. I am not responsible for the second.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 32 But you have not asked your members at all or done any objective studies among your own members, either of you. Has the CBI?
John Cridland: The CBI operates under a royal charter. We are a democratic body. We have elected regional councils. Those councils formulate the opinion of the CBI. We have 140 trade associations, which contribute to that policy-making process. We formulate a point of view which is reflected in the submission we have made on the Bill. That is a process of policy formulation, where employers judge the impact on the economy of disruption and come to a view on how we can promote positive industrial relations.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 33 Here is a question that you may have asked your members. At the moment I do not think that you have asked your members any question whatever, but here is a question. Have you asked your members about the potential for the rise in wildcat strike action by non-unionised workforces?
John Cridland: Yes, we have discussed wildcat action. There is already concern in the business—
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 34 By non-unionised workforces? Because in the private sector, of course, the vast majority of workplaces are non-unionised.
John Cridland: That is correct. Indeed. That is a matter which is regularly discussed in the relevant CBI governance bodies.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 35 What would your interpretation be in relation to this Bill?
John Cridland: The overwhelming view of British business as formulated by our own policy and decision-making process is that—using the phrase that Mr Martin described—it is sensible to provide a failsafe against a small number of pieces of industrial action where there is not currently a strong enough mandate from the workforce through trade union ballot. That is the part of the Bill that we are most concerned about.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 36 So there is no concern about rising wildcat action at all?
John Cridland: Yes. We discuss those issues, we look at the implications and we come—as an independent organisation entitled to form its point of view—to a conclusion. I reiterate that we were advocating this change five years before this Government brought it forward. This is not something where we have simply come to a conclusion on the basis of the draft proposals of the current Government.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 37 That conclusion was based on no objective evidence from your members.
John Cridland: That is where I think you are, with respect, mixing two different matters. I have explained to you carefully how we formulate policy.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 38 I am just a member of the Committee trying to get objective answers to questions.
The Chair
Let him answer the question.
John Cridland: It is quite different from the Office for National Statistics having information on the impact on the economy.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 39 So to reiterate, still no objective evidence yet?
John Cridland: I stand by the CBI’s evidence. That is my evidence. That is what I am presenting to you.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Q 40 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Thank you to the witnesses. We have spoken about certainty and clarity in business. Of course, the most essential component of any business is the employees. Will the clear description of the trade dispute and the planned industrial action, which will now appear on the ballot papers, provide more clarity for union members and help them to know what they are or are not voting for?
Dr Adam Marshall: I am happy to begin on that. We support clauses 4 to 6 of the Bill and the requirement for greater information so that everyone can have that information. The point has been made very well through the course of this process that a very small proportion of the private sector workforce are unionised, so this impacts only a small minority of my membership but the point has been expressed to us that they want employees who are being balloted on the possibility of strike action to have maximum information available to them in order to take a decision on the way that they choose to vote.
David Martin: I have nothing to add. Speaking on behalf of my organisation, I do not know the exact percentage. Recognition reflects about 98% of my workforce, I would think. It is not something that I have delved into.
Seema Kennedy
Q 41 I do not understand what you mean.
David Martin: I mean that 98% of my employees are members of trade unions.
Seema Kennedy
Q 42 So you think that it is better for them to understand exactly what they are voting for—to give everybody in a business clarity. That would help to cement better relations between employers and employees.
David Martin: Absolutely. Communication with the workforce is fundamental, from an employer viewpoint and a trade union viewpoint.
Seema Kennedy
And this would be part of it.
David Martin: As part of it, it is fine.
Jessica Morden
Q 43 Can I ask the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, are your members concerned about the proposals in the Bill that mean that details of disputes between employers and unions will be posted on the certification officer’s website?
John Cridland: No, we believe that transparency would be helpful in providing the clarity that I gave in my previous answer.
Dr Adam Marshall: Our members have expressed opinions on clauses 2 to 8 rather than clauses 9 to 17—the clauses that reflect directly to the duties of the certification officer in that respect.
Jessica Morden
Q 44 So have you consulted with your members on this at all?
Dr Adam Marshall: They have said to us, through our own policy-making processes, that these are matters that they did not wish to comment on. They wished to restrict their comments to a different portion of the Bill.
John Cridland: My answer was that I am comfortable—the CBI is comfortable—with the proposed changes.
Jessica Morden
Q 45 Does that mean that you have consulted?
John Cridland: Yes. We have consulted on the Bill as a whole.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Q 46 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As a former Government lawyer, compliance is always of enormous interest to me. Do you feel—this is for all of you—that the enhancements to the role of certification officer are really sufficient and that they will make a difference?
John Cridland: We look to harmonious employee relations. It is very important to us that we work with recognised trade unions and that we work strenuously, as trade unions nearly always do, to avoid these strikes. If there are strikes, they need to be properly and fairly regulated. Compliance is therefore important. You cannot have rules that are not properly enforced. We think these are sensible provisions to strengthen the compliance requirements but I put my answer to your question, if you will allow me, in the context that I have because I think we all want to see these rules applied in the smallest possible number of circumstances.
Dr Adam Marshall: I have nothing to add given my answer to the previous question.
David Martin: Likewise, it is not a provision that I understand in full detail. I need to spend a lot more time to understand the implications of it, so I have nothing to add.
Victoria Prentis
Q 47 The CBI, I know, feels strongly about this, as you have indicated. Do you feel that anything further could be done?
John Cridland: No, I am comfortable with the provisions that I have read and consulted our members on.
Dr Cameron
Q 48 Is it reasonable that clause 13 would give a Minister the power to overrule agreements made by trade unions and employers about the appropriate amount of facility time? Are your members concerned that that could undermine partnership working in the workplace and lead to further disruption?
John Cridland: If I may answer that, it is certainly the case that facility time is best agreed between employers and trade unions. It is primarily an issue of concern in the public sector, not in the private sector. This is not a matter that the employers in the private sector that I speak for have strong views on.
David Martin: I would be quite adamant that I would not want to see it cut across the existing effective working relationships that have built between trade unions, employees and employers.
Dr Adam Marshall: We have a very small number of members whom this affects, so we do not have a mandate to come forward with comments on that.
Dr Cameron
Q 49 You spoke about the importance of communication with your workers and harmonious employee relations. Have you consulted the workforce at all about their views?
David Martin: Not in its entirety. I have certainly had conversations with the full-time representatives that we have within the organisation in this context. I could not say that I have consulted 25,000 people in the UK.
Stephen Doughty
Q 50 I just want to push John on whom he is representing. I would contend that there are actually a number of voices in business and industry who are concerned that the Bill will do the opposite and will promote less positive industrial relations, which could have an impact on productivity and the ability to negotiate. A whole series of measures in the Bill could foster dissent rather than the agreements and constructive relationships that lead to avoiding industrial action in the first place. I was on a panel with a CBI representative a couple of weeks ago and a representative of a major industrial employers’ organisation said, “Let’s put it this way: we didn’t call for this Bill.” Could you just explain, very clearly, whom you are representing and whether there is an absolute consensus of view across business and industry that this is a good thing for business and the economy as a whole?
The Chair
After this one brisk answer, we have one more question and we must then wrap up on time.
John Cridland: I do appreciate that there are a variety of organisations and a variety of voices speaking for the business community. The CBI is an important one, but it is not exclusively the voice of business. Our own organisation has consulted fully and widely through our open and transparent governance processes, and this is the view that we have come to, as reflected in both my written and oral evidence.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Q 51 Thank you for allowing me to ask a question just before the end, Sir Edward.
You have all rightly made clear your views about the important and positive role that you see trade unions playing. Equally, you have touched on the impact that stoppages have in terms of the economy, productivity and people’s lives and how it disrupts them. I agree that the ONS being able to collect statistics around indirect impact would be a benefit to all of us, wherever one stands in this debate, but it is clear and self-evident that any stoppage in a vital public service will inevitably have an impact indirectly on days lost.
As a final, broad-brush question, do you think that, given all that and given the discussions that we have already had with you, the Bill strikes the right balance between the rights of unions and members and a recognition of their positive role and the rights of businesses and the public to get on with working and producing?
David Martin: From my perspective, that balance is the absolute key to ensuring that we maximise and protect the interests of employees and passengers alike. In many respects, the Bill itself, if it comes into practice, has to be extremely transparent, very clear, very workable and not subject to legal disputes at all stages of anything happening in the future.
The Chair
Thank you, gentlemen. That concludes our evidence session with you. Thank you for answering our questions in such a competent and brisk way. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Roy Rickhuss and John Hannett gave evidence.
The Chair
Good morning. Our next session will last for half an hour. We have got Roy Rickhuss, general secretary of Community, and John Hannett, general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. You are very welcome to our morning session. Members will ask you questions, and they may ask you a supplementary question—it is quite relaxed. We will try to get everyone in who wants to ask you a question in the next half an hour.
Stephen Doughty
Q 52 A question first to Roy and then one to John. In terms of the steel industry’s history and industrial relations in the industry as a whole over the past 20 years, where do you think positive industrial relations have helped for both employees and employers in what are clearly difficult times? I particularly commend your work on the situation at SSI, but will you speak in general terms about what benefits a positive relationship between trade unions and employers can have in a crucial industry?
Roy Rickhuss: Perhaps I should start by explaining that my union, Community, was formed in 2004 as a merger between the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation and the Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades. The ISTC was predominantly the steelworkers’ union and KFAT was predominantly textile and footwear. My background is within the steel industry. I was a steelworker when I left school right up until when I started to work full time for the union.
To answer the question on the steel industry, since 1980—incidentally, that was probably when we had the last major dispute in the industry and that was a good many years ago, so we have not done too badly in terms of industrial relations. When you look at and consider the massive changes that have gone on not just in the steel industry but in a lot of our traditional industries that are now in the private sector, we have seen massive changes: job losses; restructuring; reorganisations; flexible working; upskilling; and team working. Change is constant, and throughout that process, my union, like other unions, has been at the forefront of ensuring that that has happened smoothly, in the best interests of employees and the employer, and I think we have done a pretty good job.
I think we have also done a pretty good job in terms of trying to protect the industry. You mentioned briefly the SSI situation, and that is an absolute tragedy. We have a steel summit on Friday where we are meeting with the Minister, Anna Soubry, and we are doing everything we can to try to save steelmaking on Teesside. I do not know whether that answers your question, Stephen, but clearly we would not be where we are today in terms of having any steel industry left in the UK if it was not for the good industrial relations that we have enjoyed for 30 or 40 years.
Stephen Doughty
Q 53 Do you think that the Bill risks worsening industrial relations across the economy as a whole?
Roy Rickhuss: I do, because industrial relations—the previous speaker was interesting—is about getting the balance right. At the moment, if I am honest, I think the balance is not right; I think it is probably weighted slightly on the employer’s side already. So we need that balance and we need good industrial relations.
We have been calling on the Government for some time to look at reviewing and overhauling industrial relations in this country and trying to develop more of a partnership approach where employee representatives and trade unions work in a positive way with good employers, because, at the end of the day, that is what we want. I have never met anybody in my career who does not want to work for a successful company or be part of a successful business, because that gives stability and job security and allows people to do the things in their lives that they want to do. So it is about getting the balance right and working in partnership.
Stephen Doughty
Q 54 John, as you represent a significant number of members in a diffuse sector, what are the Bill’s specific problems and challenges for your members? I wonder in particular what your views are about the Government’s proposals on check-off.
John Hannett: USDAW is the fourth largest union, as you may know, with more than 440,000 members. In fact, it has grown by 100,000 members in the past 10 years. I have spent the past 12 years as general secretary, and seven before as deputy general secretary, promoting the partnership model that Roy referred to. The Bill, in a sense, feels to me more like a control mechanism than a fostering of good industrial relations. What do I mean by that? If you look at the agreement we have with some of the biggest private sector companies, those agreements and those relationships have been informed by, and developed based on, trust, understanding the business and honest representation.
The problem with the Bill is that it sounds like something that is highly political and intended to control behaviour more than foster good industrial relations. We have the biggest private sector partnership agreement in the country, with more than 180,000 members in one of the most successful businesses. All those negotiations take place in a spirit of trust, of building up the relationship and of understanding the sector.
In terms of check-off, this is interesting. If you look at the agreements we have within the biggest organisations in the country, these check-off arrangements have worked. They have been negotiated with those individual companies. To be perfectly honest, without check-off, it would be extremely difficult for a union like mine, which operates in a seven-day, 24-hour sector, where people are working short hours and long hours, and trying to collect union contributions. There is also something significant about check-off. It is a kind of identity between the employer and the union that we co-exist and work together. It is part of their commitment to the union, as we commit to some of the changes.
Roy referred to the many, many changes he has had to oversee. The biggest company we have the agreement with now is going through difficult times. The union is here now, operating and dealing with those issues—not just the good times, but the difficult times too. Is the Bill intended to help industrial relations? I have not seen the evidence. The best way to improve industrial relations is between the employer and the unions where they are represented, in consultation with their employees.
John Howell
Q 55 Can I move you on to some questions about the political levy? It seems to me that there is a fundamental principle of fairness in this. Voluntary funds, which is what the political levy is, should not be taken out of someone’s pay packet without their consent. Do you agree with that?
John Hannett: My union has a very clear position on this that has been in place since the union merged in 1947. First, our rulebook is very explicit about the right to be paying the political levy. On our membership form, when somebody joins the trade union, there is a very explicit clause that says, “If you do not wish to pay the levy, you do not have to.” Some of our members exercise that right, so we already cover it with our form and we are transparent about this in all our communications with our members.
John Howell
Q 56 Do you think that offers the sort of consumer protection that others outside of the trade union movement would expect in being able to deal with the political levy?
Roy Rickhuss: It is a fair question, but I also believe that trade unions are so transparent and democratic—we are probably the most democratic organisations in the country. Our members decide whether they want to have a political fund. Our rulebook and our constitution is voted on by our members—we have to re-ballot them every 10 years, but we have rule changes in between. We have conferences where members can put forward motions and debate issues, so I really do think, democratically, that the fact we have a political fund and we use it for political campaigning is well understood by our members. They vote for it positively time and time again, so I think we are covered. I fully agree with John—people are aware of the unions’ activities because we make them well known. We publicise them, and people do opt out of paying the political levy if they want to do so.
John Hannett: I am conscious of other questions, but I should remind you that in terms of our own levy, the political levy has to be balloted every 10 years. We had a 93% vote in favour, and we communicate that through all our journals.
John Howell
Q 57 Do you think that is applicable right across the board, to other trade unions? You have said what the position is in your own union.
John Hannett: I do. It is very difficult for a trade union to not be transparent in an issue like this, because if you are politically active and campaigning, you have to demonstrate how you spend your money to not only the certification office but also to your members. My union has an annual conference. The idea of not being transparent to an annual conference plus regional conferences would be impossible. As Roy said, it is the most open, democratic process you can have. Our members are not silly. They know where the money goes; they know how it is spent. And if you get a 93% vote in favour, I think that is pretty conclusive in agreeing that they should pay it.
The Chair
Okay. We have a long list of questions. You are warming up your audience, gentlemen, so we will be as brisk as we can.
Chris Stephens
Q 58 Gentlemen, both of you have extensive trade union experience. In your experience, what factors lead to low turnouts when it comes to ballots? Do you support the modernisation of the ballot process—for example, secure workplace balloting? Do you think that it is going to be more difficult to obtain industrial action on issues where there are now 45-day notices of changes to terms and conditions and voluntary redundancy? Lastly, do you think that the picket proposals will lead to more blacklisting?
Roy Rickhuss: There are a lot of questions in one there and it is difficult to answer. I am not sure why there are low turnouts in ballots. We do not experience that. In our union, we recently had a ballot on a pensions issue in one of our traditional industries and we had a well over 75% turnout. I think one issue is the way ballots are currently run. There are already significant, onerous conditions on trade unions in terms of balloting.
One issue in our response to the Bill has been the use of modern technology and electronic balloting. For the life of me, I just cannot understand why there would be any objections to that sensible move forward. I have seen some commentary saying, “Well, it’s not safe and secure.” That is so ridiculous, in fairness. You have to realise that people are not stupid; they do everything online these days. You can do all your banking, you can sign legal documents—you can do everything possible online. To suggest that you cannot vote in a ballot because it is not safe and secure undermines the whole principle of the debate. I think if we had a sensible debate about how ballots are conducted, we might make some serious progress.
Blacklisting is not an issue that my union has experienced significantly. Other unions, predominantly in the building and construction industry, obviously have major concerns about that, so yes, I would imagine that for some unions, it would be a serious concern.
John Hannett: A union like USDAW organises completely in the private sector. We operate in sectors that operate 24/7, seven days a week. My experience when I was particularly active as a union representative was that we had workplace arrangements whereby you could ballot. That used to enable people to go and vote. Of course, the world has changed and it is difficult to facilitate that kind of arrangement, but in terms of the technology, we know that the number of members who join online and who are communicating with the union online is increasing on a regular basis, so the idea of providing a new form of voting is, I think, a sensible one. Like Roy, I have heard nothing that persuades me it could not be done.
The other thing is the industrial relations side that you are picking up. We have a big productivity challenge in the UK. Everybody understands that. What I fear with many of these issues, including the argument about making it harder to run these events, is actually going the other way. So if you are really serious about turnout, you would consider electronic balloting. And in terms of engineering and encouraging good industrial relations, it is not about control mechanisms; it is about engagement, partnership and talking. In fact, if anything, I think this makes it harder for the employers, because this is seen more as controlling mechanisms than constructive relationships. I think it will have a negative impact.
The Chair
I still have seven people who want to ask questions, so from now on we will have one question and one brisk answer, if you do not mind.
Rishi Sunak
Q 59 Thank you, Sir Edward. I very much echo the comments in your submission that responsible trade unions are a force for good in the workplace and the community, so thank you for that.
I just want to return to the topic of the political levy. I was glad to hear that both of you, on your membership form, specifically provide members with the information to opt out. It turns out that that is not as common as you would think and many other unions do not do that. Given what you have said about the importance of transparency and the reason for you to have put that on the form, do you think that it is appropriate that other unions do not include that information?
John Hannett: Well, you are going to be speaking to other unions and they will give you their answer, but for me, it is right to do it, because I think that if I am going to recruit somebody into the union, I have a responsibility to tell them what they get for their money; I have a responsibility to tell them where their money is allocated. Our form is very clear, and we can certainly give you copies of the form. It is explicit that if you wish to drop out, you can. I think that is honest and the right thing to do. I think that is honest and the right thing to do.
Jessica Morden
Q 60 Can I ask Mr Hannett a specific question? You have run campaigns such as “Freedom From Fear”, which is about highlighting abuse against workers in retail and other such sectors. Can you tell the Committee how the measures in clause 11 might affect your ability to run such non-political campaigns?
John Hannett: I am sure that the Committee is aware that there are two separate funds. One is the political fund, which allows us to do political campaigns, so where there is a political link clearly we identify the campaigns as such. For instance, that one is linked politically; it is also linked industrially. On one level we engage with employers about providing good, safe environments for people to work in, but there is also a political impact when we want to campaign for new legislation to protect shop workers. Therefore, we need the resources to do that. We need the right balance, and the political levy and the combination of general and political funds enable us to do that. Without that kind of resource what you are doing is effectively making it harder for unions such as mine to campaign on such issues.
What is really important for me in the question though is the transparency. In a sense, when we go for that 10-year ballot we make it absolutely clear what we spend the money on and we also, of course, let the certification officer see clearly where we spend it. I suppose that unions such as mine and Roy’s are confused about why we are in this situation when we have had a highly successful model.
Roy Rickhuss: We also ran a fairly successful campaign around betting shops and against violence towards workers and staff in those shops, and I am pleased to say that it had all-party support. It was a successful campaign. It is questionable, and I do not know the answer at this stage, whether we would have been able to run those campaigns if they had been deemed to be political and the money had needed to come out of a political fund.
We also ran a fairly successful campaign on pensions when the last Labour Government was in power. We had a company in Cardiff that went into receivership—administration—and our members lost their pensions. We ended up taking the Labour Government to the European courts to establish the financial assistance scheme. Again, would we have been able to do that had we not had a political fund? That was about holding the Government to account in terms of protecting our members and their pensions, and we did it—and always will do it—irrespective of the colour of the Government. Whether it be Labour or Conservative, we will use our funds to protect our members’ best interests and that is what it is about for us.
Edward Argar
Q 61 You have been very reasonable and measured in your evidence, so I thank you for that. Going back to the importance of thresholds, do you agree with Mr McCluskey when he writes to the Prime Minister:
“No one, of course, can be happy when strike action takes place—especially in services on which the public depend—on the basis of the active endorsement of only a minority of trade union members affected”,
and that that clearly helps to make the case for the proposed thresholds?
John Hannett: My view on that is, first, that the obvious thing is that industrial action is a last resort. I spend most of my time as a trade unionist problem solving rather than problem causing. Also, for a member to vote to take industrial action, it has to be a last resort. I could give you statistics, but given the time I will not. We can say that we certainly solve problems more than we go on strike.
The Chair
If you want to add more you can always write to us. Do not feel constrained in that sense. We are anxious to hear the whole story.
John Hannett: Thank you, Chairman. The point I would make is that if you want thresholds and turnout to be the case, you must help as much as you can to get turnout—the access, the facilities and the objective of talking to employees before they participate. But the interesting thing is that if you look at the world of work —I mentioned seven-day, 24-hour sectors—reaching out to those people is very difficult. Our members expect us now to communicate in a way we did not some years ago when people would be released from work when branch meetings took place. Now we have to use the technology to do it. You will get the thresholds up, providing you give the opportunity for people to participate.
In conclusion, it is very difficult, today, even where we have legislation for unions to be recognised, to get access to employees. The private sector is only 15% organised, and that in itself creates a problem. I have no problem with thresholds, but it is the facilities and the access that is the issue.
Jo Stevens
Q 62 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Mr Rickhuss, I have a question about the related consultation on agency workers. Have you received any assurances from the Minister that insufficiently trained workers will not be used in safety-critical positions in your industry during industrial action?
Roy Rickhuss: Well, no, we have not but, in fairness, we have not had that discussion with the Minister at this stage. We have put our evidence to the Committee and we are here today. In terms of agency workers, that is a major concern for all of us. Across all our traditional industries, it seems such an easy thing to say, “We’ll bring in agency workers”, but it just cannot happen. People get killed in every industry and health and safety is paramount and so fundamentally important to all of us—to employers as well. I do not think employers would want this if you speak to them, because what employer is going to put people into a position where there is potential danger? It is not going to happen. These workers are not aliens from another planet; they live, breathe and work in our communities, they are part of our communities, they are people’s sons, daughters, family friends and relatives. It is, potentially, a very divisive clause in this Bill, to say that employers can bring in agency workers.
Briefly, the other impact, which I do not think has been thought through properly, is that we currently have really good agreements with employers—most employers—for the use of agency workers. They are brought in to supplement the workforce if there is a peak or a blip in an order book or a blip in terms of absenteeism. So we already have really good agreements with employers, where we co-operate fully with the use of agency workers to the point that our members—direct employees—will help to train and support those agency workers. My feeling on this, and this has not been said to me, so it is just a feeling at this stage, is that one of our direct members will now say, “Why are we co-operating with the use of agency workers if, if ever there was a dispute—which none of us wants—these agency workers can now be used against us to do our roles?”. My feeling is that some of those good agreements will be ripped up. We will have to give the required notice, but they will be ripped up and binned. Our members will say, “Why are we training agency workers to potentially do our jobs in the event of a dispute?”. I think that this is a really counterproductive measure.
The Chair
I know that our next question will be very brief and to the point and our trade union team will give just one quick answer.
James Cartlidge
Q 63 I want to ask John Hannett—I know you are on the Low Pay Commission and that you have many workers at Tesco, many of whom will be mums, who work part-time, probably at the lower end of the pay scale. I am sure that you will agree they are precisely the sorts of people who suffer when the local school closes or when buses are on strike and that—going back to the thresholds, which is the most important part of the Bill—it is in their interests that we have very reasonable thresholds. On that basis, would you agree that the thresholds that we are putting forward are reasonable?
John Hannett: Well, I think you have to look not just at the thresholds in isolation but at access and balloting arrangements and that was the answer that we gave before. In terms of Tesco and people on low pay, the reality is that strikes are very small in number in the UK, which has been demonstrated over many years. What I think is missing, which is the general point that I would make—and I made the point about control mechanisms—is encouraging good industrial relations, partnership and the stuff that Roy and I are doing. It is all about a race to the bottom. The people who work in Tesco, of course they want to be able to take their children to school but the fact that there is a dispute means that the best emphasis is on how you resolve the dispute.
Everything that I heard in the Bill is about thresholds, mechanisms, control mechanisms—I have also been on the ACAS council for a number of years and all my training, which I believe applies to trade unions, is to solve the disputes. The first thing you do when you go on strike is to try to avoid it by using your mechanisms and your procedures. However, if you do end up in a strike position, there is not a trade union leader I know—or there should be no trade union leader—who takes strike action easily or recommends it. It is a very serious position to take; people lose money, or potentially lose their jobs. That is why think you will find, overall, unions are problem solvers, not problem causers.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 64 Good morning, Roy and John. I wanted to ask your opinion of the CBI’s evidence, in which they talked about facility time being more of an issue in the public sector than in the private sector. Roy, you know—being general secretary for workers represented in companies such as Tata, Celsa, Outokumpu, Forgemasters or Caparo—and I know, that the facility time agreed on those sites provides health and safety reps trained by the unions, who often become the next health and safety managers on site—for free for those companies. Will you go into the facility time implications that could become apparent on COMAH site safe workplaces?
Roy Rickhuss: Just briefly, obviously I am aware that facility time is probably more of an issue for the public sector—again, there is nothing to say whether that is politically motivated or not—but certainly in the private sector, in the industries that we work in, facility time is agreed with the employer, so the employer is happy and comfortable. It is interesting that employers, again, would probably say, “It’s agreed, it allows people to do a job of work both for the employer and the employee”—so they are attending meetings, doing planning strategy, representing people and ensuring that all the good industrial relations that we talked about are happening and working. Anything that impacts on or tries to interfere with that relationship will be detrimental to good industrial relations.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 65 Would you also say that they get the technical expertise from the shop floor, which improves efficiency on site?
Roy Rickhuss: Absolutely. People who have worked in a job or industry for a number of years know that job and that industry as well as anyone, so the fact that they are able to sit down with their supervisors and team leaders, or for team brief and so on, and they are able to give of that experience and give across that help and advice is invaluable.
I am not sure where all this fits with the ACAS code of practice, which is excellent and has been used as a good benchmark for decades. Trade union activist officials have the right to paid time off to do their duties, which has never really caused a problem. I am not aware of anyone objecting to that or trying to change the ACAS code of practice. It has worked reasonably well for a long time.
Seema Kennedy
Q 66 Mr Rickhuss, in your written submission you bring out the point that you think that the Bill is going to put too much power in the hands of employers, but would you not agree that those affected by strikes in education and transport have no power at all? Also, when we have very low turnouts, those people are disproportionately powerful, because they can still bring a city to a standstill or close down an entire education system.
Roy Rickhuss: Again, you are talking about the public sector. I do not believe that anyone should be inconvenienced by strikes—that is not my position and I would not say that. What I do say is—back fully agreeing with John—it is about having proper industrial relations and having a partnership approach. I do believe a threshold of 50% plus one is fair and reasonable, because that is what we have—that is our democracy.
It works both ways. If we have a proposal from the company or the management to change a particular working practice, which we deal with almost daily, that is the threshold for whether that working practice or change in terms and conditions is accepted or not. We do not say to our members, “We are going to have an onerous condition that says you have to vote by 60% or whatever to accept a change in your working practices.” The companies are quite happy with that. When they want to change a working practice, introduce some flexibilities and so on, they are quite happy for the union to consult its members, and come back and say, “Yes, that has been accepted by the members.”
The Chair
Okay. I have to stop you there—I think the Minister wants to have the last shout.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
Q 67 Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. We are obviously not going to agree on every point in the Bill, but I salute you both as absolute exemplars of trade unions working at their best. In particular, Mr Rickhuss—I do not know whether I have pronounced your name correctly—I wanted to say that as well as having responsibility for the Bill I am the Skills Minister, and if there is anything I can do to help you in dealing with the dreadful situation for the thousands of your members in Redcar, please come directly to me, as I would like to do whatever I can.
Roy Rickhuss: Thank you.
The Chair
Q 68 Do you want to say anything in conclusion, gentlemen?
John Hannett: I have one quick comment. I would impress on the Committee the need to look at some of the best practice as well. Sometimes it feels like a lot of this is perhaps being driven by the worst examples. It would be worth looking at some of the biggest partnership agreements, particularly in the private sector. That would be a much more constructive way forward on industrial relations than just looking at the negative stuff. The model we should be looking at is the biggest private agreement in the country, with 180,000 members in one of the most successful businesses.
The Chair
Thank you, gentlemen, for the impressive way you have answered our questions. That concludes this part of the sitting.
Examination of witnesses.
Stephen Cavalier and Mike Emmott gave evidence.
The Chair
For our last session this morning we have Stephen Cavalier, chief executive of Thompsons Solicitors, and Mike Emmott, senior policy adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. We have half an hour.
Stephen Doughty
Q 69 I have two questions each for you. Mike, your organisation has been very clear about its concerns about the Bill, which has been described as counterproductive and as having potential unintended consequences. Given your representation of members working in HR who obviously have daily front-line experience of dealing with trade unions, industrial disputes and individual disputes, will you explain why you came to those conclusions about the Bill?
Mike Emmott: Thank you very much for that question. Basically, we think it targets a problem that was more evident several years ago than it is today. We do not really have any evidence that the problem has become more acute or needs tackling. In particular, we do not know that, if there is a problem, it should be tackled in this manner. We do not really see the need for legislation on this topic. We do not believe it is likely to have the intended effect of reducing industrial action, or that it is likely to contribute to greater productivity, innovation or performance generally, because it does not really address the issue of relationships on the shop floor, which we see as being at the heart of productivity.
We are more interested in the relationship between employer and employee or workforce and we are a bit concerned that the Bill does not address that in a constructive way. Those are our main reasons. We feel that, particularly in the public sector, the issue of employee engagement—the word “partnership” has been used—the attitude of looking to develop trust, is the way that the Government should tackle the continuing, quite real problems that they will encounter, in the public sector in particular.
Stephen Doughty
Q 70 Okay. That is very helpful.
Steve, you and Thompsons have said that significant aspects of the Bill are essentially unworkable. Will you explain why you believe that to be the case and whether you believe that the Bill will actually lead to an increase in probably expensive litigation if, as you say, parts of the Bill are unworkable or unenforceable?
Stephen Cavalier: Thank you for the question and thank you to the Committee for the opportunity to give evidence today. First, I endorse the evidence given by the witness from Arriva that it is necessary for the Bill to be clear and workable. Putting it bluntly, it is not. It is unworkable in several respects. We heard from the CBI about the law of common sense, which seems to have gone out of the window in some aspects of the Bill. The Bill needs to be workable but it is unworkable in several ways and, in fact, some aspects seem to be designed deliberately to make it difficult, if not impossible, to comply with the provisions. I shall give the Committee a couple of examples.
On the 40% threshold, the Government kick off by saying that the unions must ballot all members who are affected by the dispute. That is simply wrong; it is a wrong statement of the law. They have to ballot those they expect to call upon to take action. They build on that by trying to introduce these thresholds in a way which is very unclear. The thresholds apply where people are normally engaged in important public services—those are not defined—or in ancillary services. The consultation paper for the consultation, which concluded on 9 September —we have obviously not seen the Government’s response—tries to list a whole load of jobs which are included in “important public services”. The Government recognise the difficulty in doing that—it is very unclear—and it is exceptionally difficult to see how a trade union, when balloting, is able to decide whether or not a particular member or group of members is covered by that definition when the information is in the hands of the employer. You may have a mixed constituency, some of whom are covered and some of whom are not. For example, in a school where some teachers are teaching pupils of under or over the age of 16—so they are partly covered and partly not—it is complete chaos as to whether they are actually going to be covered.
On the ballot paper point, an earlier question mentioned the importance of clarity on the ballot paper. It will be a lot less clear if we have ballot papers as proposed by this legislation. What on earth is a reasonably detailed indication—it is an oxymoron, it is internally inconsistent —of the matters at issue in a dispute? As everybody who knows about industrial relations will know, often one of the issues in dispute in a dispute is what actually is in dispute, so I do not know quite how that is going to be stated clearly. This is not about providing information for members; it is about providing ammunition for employers.
The intention here is clearly to encourage a lot of litigation and that is going to be expensive. It is very unclear and an awful lot of detail needs to be sorted out, even, for example, in terms of describing types of industrial action. We had a meeting with Government lawyers and I felt rather sorry for them. They were trying to explain what the provisions meant—I happen to have a lot of time for Government lawyers and the work they do—and they could not explain what types of industrial action they were talking about. They said, “Overtime bans, work to rule”. Well, those are not legal terms of art. That creates more confusion, rather than less.
Stephen Doughty
Q 71 May I ask a specific question about clause 14 and the certification officer? Wide-ranging powers are being suggested with regard to changing the role of the certification officer. Essentially, the certification officer will be able to bring a complaint, investigate it, decide on which witnesses, make decisions over the matter, impose fines and enforce them. Do you think that creates a very unwelcome blurring of the lines between investigator and adjudicator?
Stephen Cavalier: I am not sure that it blurs the lines; I think it probably removes them altogether. There will be a lot of applications to be certification officer on that basis, I should imagine, given the sheer range of powers. The pity is that the certification officer does a very good job of arbitrating in disputes between union members and the union—so, the individual member and the union as a collective. This completely changes that role. It means that the certification officer himself has to initiate investigations, can demand documents and demand immediate explanations of documents, and can appoint investigators, who may not actually be employed by the certification officer—they may be from accountants, for example, at enormous expense to the unions themselves, who then have to pay a levy for it.
It is interesting that unlike in employment tribunals, where applicants have to pay a fee to bring a claim, no one seems to be suggesting that a complainant needs to pay a fee before they go to the certification officer. Then, to extend that, to be able to impose fines and the fact that enforcement orders by the certification officer can be enforced not just by the certification officer but by individual members as well, goes well beyond any rule-of-law or natural justice considerations.
John Howell
Q 72 We heard from the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce that all this Bill does is modernise the way in which trade unions behave. It does not introduce a fundamental change in the trade union rules that apply, so it is very difficult in that circumstance to understand why you describe the Bill as unlawful and unwarranted. In the example that you use of not being able to tell what the nature of the dispute is, surely it is in the interests of transparency that that should be settled and be clearly on the ballot paper.
Stephen Cavalier: The problem here—I was in a meeting with some employers’ lawyers and they were expressing it this way—is about forcing such a detailed description of all the matters at issue in a dispute at the start. The lawyers’ concern is that unions will be forced to draw the dispute as broadly as possible to include every single aspect, and moreover, that it is likely to escalate matters because unions will feel reluctant to compromise on individual issues in the dispute, as employers will otherwise argue that consequently the dispute has changed and that there needs to be a re-ballot. It forces extreme behaviour, if you like, and it is likely to mean that a dispute escalates.
In terms of being unlawful, we mentioned in our submission the areas where we believe it contravenes the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation code. The other point to make is that, as the Regulatory Policy Committee said in its response to the impact assessment, there is absolutely no evidence that it will work. In terms of modernising industrial relations, the Regulatory Policy Committee has said that there should be separate assessments of the 50% threshold and of the 40% threshold. It completely rejects the analysis of the likely impact of the threshold on the outcomes of disputes, because there is no analysis of the impact of a threshold on voting behaviour and turnouts in the elections themselves.
Dr Cameron
Q 73 The Government are consulting on draft regulations that would repeal the restriction on providing agency staff during industrial disputes. What are your views on these proposed changes? Could they further undermine industrial relations?
Mike Emmott: Our view is that the consultation paper overstates the likely impact of removing the prohibition on employment agencies supplying workers on a temporary basis during industrial disputes. It is already possible for employers to recruit temporary labour without any difficulty, provided that they do it directly. For some of the reasons that emerged from the last witness session, we think that issues of training and safety, never mind the availability of qualified staff, will very considerably reduce the impact of this, which is the third of the consultation issues. It is likely to be pretty much a non-event, except possibly in some cases where employers—maybe large employers—have close relationships with agencies, and on a daily basis they take on quite a lot of temporary labour. It might be difficult to know whether or not particular workers were engaged in replacing workers who are on strike. But in general, we do not think that this particular part of the Bill is likely to have any major impact. I do not speak for recruitment agencies or recruitment businesses, but I think that many of them will be quite reluctant to get sucked into industrial disputes.
Stephen Cavalier: Indeed, the recruitment businesses’ own organisation, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, has said that this is a very dangerous proposal which it does not support. The Regulatory Policy Committee itself said that there was absolutely no basis for the Government’s assertion that 22% of days lost would be solved by this. Moreover, there are very good emergency arrangements in place to ensure that cover is provided in the public sector, certainly in the fire service and in midwifery. I am sure that people would much rather have those arrangements than agency workers brought in to put out fires or to deliver babies.
Victoria Prentis
Q 74 My questions really relate to the certification officer, which you present in your evidence as a sort of big bad wolf, and you seem very concerned about the prospect of the additional powers. I put it to you that really the prospect of having a certification officer is surely a sensible solution to difficulties with compliance, and an appropriate response to situations where non-compliance may have occurred. What strikes you as so outrageous about having to produce documents?
Stephen Cavalier: Well, first, the certification officer is not a big bad wolf, and his current iteration is doing a very good job. I would be very interested to hear from the Government what consultation there was with the certification officer about his own powers and his current arrangements, and whether he felt that his powers needed to be extended, and indeed what consultation there was with other agencies on the impacts of these powers. The purpose of the certification officer was to enable individual union members who felt that they were getting the wrong end of the stick from a collective issue to have a voice, which they would otherwise not have had. It is not about allowing outside agencies to influence the state regulator or to put pressure on the state regulator to initiate action. I cannot see how a state regulator can be impartial if they can be prevailed upon externally to take action. Also, if they were funded in the way that is suggested, that would completely alter the nature of the role.
Victoria Prentis
Q 75 But would you agree that the purpose is to establish whether or not there has been non-compliance?
Stephen Cavalier: Well, I am not sure that it is to establish whether there has been non-compliance. Non-compliance with what? At the moment if there is an issue to do with rules or statute, a member can complain to the certification officer. What is actually changing here is to take it beyond that and start, for example, requiring unions to report to the certification officer details of industrial action, which are really none of the certification officers’ concern. A certification officer is essentially there to deal with internal matters within unions to do with disputes and rights within unions, whereas here they are talking about the possibility of any person initiating a complaint with no written notice, and calling on unions immediately to produce documents and immediately to explain documents—it is difficult to see what the purpose of it is. It is very intrusive. This would certainly impact on unions’ own regulation and their democratic right to organise and be accountable, which is likely to call into question the European convention and ILO matters.
Victoria Prentis
Q 76 It is not unreasonable, though, to ask that the certification officer be able to have documents produced to him, is it?
Stephen Cavalier: Well, if there is a complaint made to the certification officer by an actual member about a real concern—
Victoria Prentis
Q 77 Forgive me, if the certification officer has a concern, he should surely—
Stephen Cavalier: The certification officer does not range around the country investigating trade unions and looking at what they are doing to find out whether he has a concern. Where are the concerns going to come from? At the moment, the certification officer is dealing with complaints that are made to him from legitimate concerns about individual union members or groups of members. If he thinks that that complaint has some grounds, he can deal with that, and in the course of that hearing, he is entitled to ask for documents and to have documents produced in the same way as an employment tribunal.
Victoria Prentis
Q 78 But you are not happy for him to self-generate concerns.
Stephen Cavalier: For example, were you suggesting that there should be a labour inspectorate that could decide whether it thought there were poor labour practices going on around the country and could call for employers to produce and explain documents, like a health and safety inspector can, that would be a very different situation. The proposal here completely alters the role of the certification officer from deciding on legitimate complaints to going out and fishing around to try to find issues. Where would the certification officer make these decisions? Why would they be making these decisions? The Law Society is very concerned about the complete change in this role and the fact that it fundamentally alters the nature of his role.
Ian Mearns
Q 79 I am grateful, Sir Edward. I understand from social media links that I read yesterday that many of the suggestions in the consultation on the Trade Union Bill are likely to be withdrawn, although we have not had that confirmed yet. I find that disappointing, because I was personally looking forward to a sustained bout of wildcat or secondary tweeting. The Government’s proposals treat abstentions as no votes. How would it impact, for instance, on the likelihood of a trade union ballot reaching a threshold if everyone who wants to vote no just abstains? Would that raise any prospect of legal challenge, given that the ILO has confirmed that only votes cast should be taken into account in industrial action ballots?
Stephen Cavalier: On the point about thresholds, as the Regulatory Policy Committee has said, the likelihood is that the existence of the thresholds will have an impact on turnout and behaviour. In terms of modernisation and coming back to the previous question, if we are genuinely looking to modernise trade unions, electronic and workplace balloting are essential for that and for increasing turnout. You are absolutely right that the provisions under the ILO convention specifically say that an abstention should not be treated as a no vote, and that is a clear area of potential illegality. There are not similar thresholds in any other European Union member states or Council of Europe convention states. The Bill introduces a new requirement that is likely to be found to be unlawful. In particular, the treating of an abstention as a no vote is likely to be subject to legal challenge.
Ian Mearns
Q 80 In terms of an international comparator, who would this provision put us in line with?
Stephen Cavalier: I think the only threshold is in Bulgaria, where there is a 50% threshold, which is likely to be under challenge.
Ian Mearns
Q 81 So, for UK, read Bulgaria.
Stephen Cavalier: Quite possibly.
Rishi Sunak
Q 82 Thank you both for giving up your time today. I want to turn to the clauses about the transparency of political donations. Stephen, I noticed that in your submission you made the point that you do not think any other bodies are subject to similar provisions. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps you can help me, because my understanding from my business life is that the Companies Act 2006 requires the annual disclosure of political donations by companies and, further than that, requires active shareholder consent and a resolution to be passed, rather than an opt-out system, which is obviously a higher threshold than what we have today. I think you used the language “oppressive”. Would you consider the system of corporate donations we have today to be oppressive?
Stephen Cavalier: I would like to see a lot more transparency around corporate donations—things such as the Midlands Industrial Council, which is the major contributor to one of the political parties—and funds that are channelled through intermediaries into political parties. I would like to see shareholders having a real say in whether there are political donations. We have heard the point about the wider political implications of the political fund rules on broader campaigning. There is already complete transparency of the donations that are being made.
It is extraordinary to suggest that every trade union whose total donations exceed £2,000 per annum has to give details of every single individual donation, what it is used for and to which recipient on an annual return each year. That is an extraordinary intrusion of privacy on the individuals who make those donations. I do not see any equivalent provisions in relation to companies. I defer to you if there are such provisions.
Rishi Sunak
Q 83 The difference would be that a company cannot just take money from shareholders, give it to political parties and ask shareholders to opt out; they have to acquire active shareholder consent. Unions today do not have to do that. Do you think that balance is right?
Stephen Cavalier: Well, that is not a correct characterisation of the situation. At the moment, unions have to ballot every 10 years for a political fund. You have heard from Mr Hannett already; 93% of USDAW members voted in favour. That is quite a common percentage among trade unions. Every single union must have a political fund ballot every 10 years. Every single member is legally required to have a notice when they join that gives them the opportunity to opt out of the political fund if they want to. Those provisions already exist.
The measure suggests that that should be changed, by the way, on the basis that within three months of the Bill becoming law, every single trade union member who pays the political fund will have to write in by post or by hand to opt in, with no opportunity to do so electronically. It completely fails to take into account that, as matters stand, unions are required by law to have a political fund rule adopted under their own constitutional provisions, which is approved by the certification officer. If you change the law in this way, every single union will need to change their rules, have those rules approved by the certification officer and get their members to sign up, which they simply cannot do within three months. To my mind, it is another example of a deliberate attempt to draft the legislation in such a way as it cannot be complied with by trade unions.
Rishi Sunak
Q 84 This is the basic issue of fairness—of people’s contributions being taken without their active consent at the time of membership. We heard in earlier evidence that some unions support that but it is very much not the widespread practice among all unions to provide that information to their members. If you support transparency, it is clear today that that transparency does not exist across the entire board.
Stephen Cavalier: It is a legal requirement to tell members that they have the right to opt out of the political fund. If they wish to, they do so.
Chris Stephens
Q 85 I have several questions. First, do you agree that there is a danger in introducing thresholds—the impact that it will have on some gender equality issues, for example? Shift changes impact workers trying to pursue equal pay issues and the like. Secondly, is there a new danger of public bodies having to reissue new, individual contracts on the basis of opportunities to check-off and those sorts of issues? Do you see any impact on the devolved Administrations given that your organisation has offices across the UK?
Stephen Cavalier: First, on the equality point, the TUC has already submitted evidence. There is a disproportionate impact of thresholds on women workers; it is absolutely clear that there is a discriminatory impact. On the question of check-off and facility time, we are also a large employer. We have check-off and facility time and we are pleased to do so. It is something that we have agreed with our workforce and it works very well for us. I very much endorse the comments made in a 2012 paper by called “Stop the Union-Bashing” by Robert Halfon MP, who says that Whitehall should not dictate to employers and that it should be a matter for employers to agree facility time. I commend that paper to the Committee. It is certainly right that employers should agree facility time and check-off. It is a matter for them.
There are serious issues here associated with the devolved Administrations. As I understand it, they have the right to determine these arrangements within their own spheres. This does cut across that, and it does so in a very negative way. It is very concerning that the impact assessment itself—in fact, I think the European convention assessment that the Government have produced says specifically that this removal of existing contractual arrangements and collective agreements may have retrospective effect. That is a serious potential breach of article 1, protocol 1 of the European convention.
James Cartlidge
Q 86 Thank you both for coming. You have both spoken about thresholds and their potential impact, but neither of you seem to have focused on the key point that matters to the country at large, which is that it is so unfair to our commuters, our parents and so on that their public services can be brought down for days on low turnouts. We heard earlier from Arriva that on a 17% ballot, 50% of their buses were out for a day, causing massive disruption to its passengers. Do you not accept, in principle, that it is right to deal with that?
Mike Emmott: Our view is that although it is conceivable that the increased threshold will influence the outcome in some cases, it is quite unclear whether it is going to make striking more or less likely. There are lots of way of causing problems. We do not have a view on whether or not the thresholds are right in principle. We simply take the view that they are just as likely to cause more trouble as they are to reduce it.
James Cartlidge
Q 87 The point is not whether it makes it more or less likely, in my view. The point is that if the strike goes ahead with the sort of turnout we will require, the public are much more likely to accept it. That is surely the point. At the moment, these strikes are happening on a very low turnout. Do you accept that we are right to deal with that?
Stephen Cavalier: Can I come in on that premise? The Regulatory Policy Committee has said that there is no evidence that the thresholds would have that impact. Strikes are not going ahead on those low thresholds. One particular example was given by a colleague from Arriva, and what he said about inward investment in response to the question was very interesting. The fact of the matter is that the current legislation and the current situation have not prevented the Governments of France, Germany, Holland and other countries from investing in the UK rail network and owning train operating companies. There simply is not that problem.
James Cartlidge
Q 88 So you do not think we should be doing anything about thresholds. You think it is right that schools, buses and other major public services can be brought down for a day or more on the basis of very low turnouts. In principle, do you think that is fair?
Stephen Cavalier: There is not a problem on low turnouts, and the way to tackle turnouts that has been suggested is workplace ballots and electronic ballots.
Mike Emmott: Simply, if you have a ballot, the unions are going to take into account the likely response by members and choose situations where they are more likely to win rather than lose, and why not? Once you get a big majority in favour and it is clear and transparent, I think that legitimises the action. Whether it makes it more acceptable I am quite doubtful of, but you have to take account of the fact that you may be pulling in members who actually support the action that is being called rather than appealing to some supposedly moderate majority who do not want it.
Stephen Doughty
Q 89 We have heard a lot about schools, hospitals and transport. Obviously, those are devolved matters. We are hearing from the Scottish and Welsh Governments later on today. In your view, is there a fundamental breach of the devolution settlement here and potential legal proceedings as a result of some of the measures in the Bill impacting on decisions that are actually fully devolved to those Governments and, indeed, in a number of cases, to local governments across England?
Stephen Cavalier: Yes, I think that is absolutely right, in relation to facility time and check-off and to these matters to do with the threshold.
Stephen Doughty
Q 90 Do you agree with that, Mike? Do you think there is a risk here? You deal with Governments, public services and businesses across the UK. Do you think there is a problem here in terms of devolution?
Mike Emmott: I do not know what the devolution settlement would say specifically about these collective issues. I understand something about individual conflicts, tribunals and so on. We have not consulted members, but I think it is appropriate for these issues to be dealt with on a national basis. It is going to be quite odd for employers dealing with different rules applying in different jurisdictions, where there may be issues that go across the whole of the UK.
The Chair
We have come to the end of our time. Thank you for speaking to us. I thank the Members. We are going to adjourn until 2 pm, when my colleague Sir Alan Meale will take the Chair. He is a very kindly gentleman, so I hope you will be equally well behaved with him. It has been a very good session, and everyone has got in who wanted to.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Stephen Barclay.)
Trade Union Bill (Second sitting)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Order. We will now hear oral evidence from 2020 Health. Ms Manning, Members on either side of the room will be asking questions, but please give us a brief introduction first. We have to finish at 2.30 pm.
Julia Manning: Thank you for the invitation. My name is Julia Manning, chief exec of 2020 Health. We are a think-tank whose mission is to make health personal. That is very much about information, education, understanding and confidence for individuals to make decisions for themselves.
My background is that I served in the NHS for 19 years as an optometrist, firstly in the high street and then in hospital, in research practice and finally with people who are housebound, disabled, end-of-life care and also working in prisons with people who are sectioned under the Mental Health Act. So I have an NHS background and I continue to be involved in research. I am a research associate at UCL in medical anthropology looking at the impact of digital health technologies on behaviour and wellbeing.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Q 9191 Thank you Sir Alan. I welcome you to the Chair and hope that you will enjoy proceedings with us over the coming weeks.
Julia, I was not aware of your organisation before seeing you were giving evidence today. Could you clarify if you have ever had any associations with any political party in the past? Does your organisation or anybody in a senior position or present directors have any political affiliations?
Julia Manning: Yes. After 10 years in the NHS I was very frustrated that a lot of what I did was influenced and dictated by politicians. I had no prior engagement in party politics at all. I looked at what the different political parties were doing in health inequalities, and at that time, under the leadership of William Hague, the Tories were doing more than any party, so I joined the Conservative party.
I stood as a councillor and stood in the 2005 general election. During that period I became increasingly concerned that the front line of the NHS—whether managerial, clinical, research—did not have a voice when it came to policy formation, so I gave up my parliamentary ambitions and set up 2020 Health, which is about having vision for the future and not our sell-by-date.
Stephen Doughty
Q 92 Am I correct that your current president is a former Conservative MP as well? Is that right?
Julia Manning: Are you referring to Dr Thomas Stuttaford?
Stephen Doughty
Yes, Thomas Stuttaford.
Julia Manning: He has been ill for some time, so we have not had any contact with him for some years.
Stephen Doughty
Q 93 But he was involved?
Julia Manning: Yes, he is notionally still our president.
Stephen Doughty
Q 94 And he is a former Conservative MP. Is that correct?
Julia Manning: Yes.
Stephen Doughty
Q 95 Why do you think this Bill is necessary, particularly given the lack of industrial action in the health sector? The RCM has obviously not authorised industrial action before; it was the first time the RCM had gone on strike in its 134-year history. Given that, why is this Bill so needed in the health sector?
Julia Manning: I think you are right that the health sector is part of the public sector that has set a very impressive record of not taking industrial action. You cannot speak for everyone—there is over a million employees—but the ethos has been very much one of focusing on caring for the individual and doing everything possible to keep that as your primary focus. That is the perspective that I am coming from.
Stephen Doughty
Q 96 I am interested in that because you are talking about the relationships that exist in the health service and that ethos of patient care and so on. I am well aware that concerns about the Bill have been expressed to Ministers in writing and submissions from senior figures in the NHS, who have made a point of emphasising their strong partnership arrangements with trade unions and the fact that they are worried that the Bill is going to put that at risk—in jeopardy. In one letter that I have seen they say that it will make us less able to agree solutions locally to manage any potential impacts of any actions in the future. Would you agree that there is a serious risk that the Bill will put at risk those type of partnership arrangements that have ensured that patient care is the focus, even when there are industrial disputes?
Julia Manning: No, I do not agree, and I do not really see where that concern comes from. My understanding is that the Bill ensures that everything possible has been done in terms of sorting out issues at the front line and that it ensures that there is a large majority of opinion that action needs to be taken, rather than a few vocal proponents of action being allowed to have their head.
Stephen Doughty
Q 97 Even though there has not been such action, as you have accepted, in terms of the RCN and the RCM and many other bodies?
Julia Manning: The RCM, I believe, was going to take action in 2014, and then at the last minute—
Stephen Doughty
Q 98 For the first time in 156 years.
Julia Manning: Absolutely. Prior to that, there was some action in 2001, and in 1982. It has been rare in health.
Stephen Doughty
Q 99 Okay. I have a specific question about devolution. Do you operate just in England, or do you operate across the UK?
Julia Manning: We operate across the UK.
Stephen Doughty
Q 100 What do you make of the position of the Welsh Government, and, I believe, the Scottish Government as well, that significant parts of the Bill cut across the devolution settlement? These are fully devolved matters—health is a fully devolved matter, and yet the Bill effectively interferes in relationships that the devolved Governments have with the health sector.
Julia Manning: I am not an expert in devolution, but I think that the general direction of travel is a greater emphasis on local relationships and local negotiations, and the Bill reflects that.
Stephen Doughty
Q 101 So you would agree that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government should have the freedom to be able to determine those local relationships, rather than being interfered in by the Bill?
Julia Manning: I think it is a conversation that needs to take place across the country—across the devolved nations.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Q 102 The health service would be subject to the 40% threshold for strikes. Do you think that that has been drawn widely enough, and would you like to see any other bits of the health service included in that?
Julia Manning: In terms of detail, I have not clocked all the amendments, and one of my concerns was that certain areas would be excluded. Maybe you can tell me, for instance, what the terms are for some of the critical services, such as intensive care and emergency services, and whether they are different.
John Howell
Q 103 So you would like to see those included.
Julia Manning: I would like to see them excluded. I do not think, if you are working in intensive care or emergency services, you should have the right to strike.
John Howell
Q 104 What do you think the effect of the Bill will be on patients seeking healthcare?
Julia Manning: Thinking about the Bill, the wider context is really interesting in terms looking at the trends for our ageing population, the greater proportion of people who will have long-term conditions, who will be dependent on interventions and who will have been lined up potentially seeking to have treatment and then feel that that might be jeopardised by industrial action. There is a volume issue here.
For me, the Bill raises the discussion that I feel we should be having around the changing nature of the workplace for the NHS as a whole, because of the impact and influence of technology, which is changing many of the duties and roles that people have and the opportunities for the public to look after themselves. It feels to me as though we are still talking about skills and the workforce as it is now, but what is it going to look like in five or 10 years’ time? It could be very different.
John Howell
Q 105 Would you like to give us a view of what you think it will look like, and how the Bill would affect that in five to 10 years’ time?
Julia Manning: Again, I will try not to get too technical or philosophical. The Bill does not go into the detail of the many different NHS roles and responsibilities, but those are going to change. As patients, as the public and as what we call “participatients”, we will have information and access to all sorts of things that we currently do not have access to, which have been the preserve of the NHS. Down the line, the impact of action could be quite different because of what we as the public will have access to, which will no longer be within the control of NHS professionals. That is something we should be mindful of.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Q 106 It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
I would first like to ask: are you aware that the current law in terms of trade unions participating in industrial action is that they must provide life and limb cover? If so, does that assuage your fears? In addition, what surveys have you taken of the members in your organisation? You did intimate to Mr Doughty that you are organised across the UK. Also, do you believe that, with any changes at all within any of the health services across the UK, there has to be a negotiated change and a mutual partnership arrangement between employers and the trade unions?
Julia Manning: On the first point, in terms of like for like—
Chris Stephens
Sorry, it is life and limb cover. Trade unions are legally obliged to provide life and limb cover in any industrial action.
Julia Manning: Sorry, could you repeat the question?
Chris Stephens
Basically, are you aware that trade unions have to provide life and limb cover in an industrial dispute? Does that assuage your fears of what is currently taking place in the workplace? Are you more relaxed that because a trade union under current law has to provide life and limb cover that you are comfortable with that? You have raised a lot of points on some of the earlier questions about the impact on patients.
Julia Manning: My concern with that is about the projected increase in the number of patients and, therefore, the workforce we will potentially need. We already have shortages in skill sets in all sorts of areas. If I understand you correctly, the opportunity to provide cover is going to be harder.
Chris Stephens
Q 107 Do you know what life and limb cover actually is?
Julia Manning: Give me your definition.
Chris Stephens
Q 108 In an industrial dispute a trade union is obliged to maintain services while workers are on strike, and to provide cover in case of emergencies: health and safety emergencies, for example. In the NHS, there would have to be some sort of provision for those who are critically ill. Have you considered the life and limb cover issues that are in existing trade union legislation?
Julia Manning: As an organisation, no we have not.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Q 109 Going back to devolution, on which I recognise you are avowedly not an expert, take it from me that health is a devolved issue. I think my colleague mentioned that. Do you view the Bill as being concerned more with employment and industrial relations than health? Obviously, you look at it from a health perspective, but in your mind, what is the Bill concerned with?
Julia Manning: The Bill from my perspective and the interest I have in it is how patient experience would be affected by the Bill and has been affected by strikes. When we already have a scenario of shortages in the workforce and treatment being curtailed and postponed for other reasons, it is another consideration for us that would mean that people are not seen when they expect or need to be. That is my interest in the Bill.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Q 110 Can I ask you about clauses 12 and 13? They propose to change the current arrangements for facility time, and facility time operates within the NHS. What do you know about the current arrangements and what do you consider their benefits?
Julia Manning: Of facility time? I do not know about that.
Jo Stevens
Q 111 You do not know anything about facility time?
Julia Manning: No.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Q 112 Concerning patients’ access to healthcare, as you mentioned, when there are strikes in other sectors outside healthcare, for example, in transport or schools, presumably that impacts a lot of people who are employed by the NHS or other healthcare operators. Do you have any thoughts on the disruption that strikes in those sectors have caused in healthcare and in the NHS, and do you think that this Bill will at all improve patients’ access to healthcare in those circumstances?
Julia Manning: That is an interesting question, particularly in the light of the recent strikes that we have experienced in London and on London transport, which we know have had a significant impact on the ability to run clinics in hospitals across the capital. That is the extent of our interest. Again, I take that back to the patient experience and either their managing to get there and then not being able to be seen, or their being told that they cannot be seen because of that action—the influence that has on someone who requires urgent treatment for sight loss or on someone who is isolated, has had a fall and then had their hip replacement postponed again.
Our interest is very much at that personal patient level, but the repercussions go beyond that individual’s experience, because of those around them and the other circumstances that have had to be arranged. Your point is very valid in terms of the influence of other industrial action on the ability of the health service to do its job and, quite practically, for staff to be able to be on site.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Q 113 I wonder what your views are on the opinions of the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and the Society of Radiographers, which all state that there are aspects of this Bill that are deeply concerning to them with regard to patient care. What would your response be in that regard?
Julia Manning: Can you give me an example of one of their concerns?
Dr Cameron
Q 114 Yes. For example, the RCM has spoken about the use of agency workers, which it describes as being potentially detrimental to patient care, in relation to those workers’ ability to understand patient care regulations within the workplace and so on.
Julia Manning: I agree that use of agency workers is always sub-optimal, but it happens all the time for other reasons. There are bigger issues, and issues that occur more frequently, which create the need for agency workers to be brought in. Those issues need to be addressed outside of this.
Dr Cameron
Q 115 The RCN opposes the Bill. If the Bill is enacted, the RCN says, it
“could have serious consequences for productivity and morale in the NHS”,
and therefore it poses a threat to patient care.
Julia Manning: That has to be looked at while considering the balance between the ability to take action and other factors, so you could argue from both sides that patient care will be affected if action is taken or if it is made more difficult to take action. Patient care is a concern that needs to be at the forefront of all decision making. Looking at the RCM in particular, it was very much at the heart of the call for action a couple of years ago but then stepped back, and I think that it did absolutely the right thing.
Dr Cameron
Q 116 But you have no concerns that your views appear to be in opposition to all these bodies, which represent medical and nursing staff and which are concerned about patient care, as well as the impact on it?
Julia Manning: I do not see it as being in opposition. I am as concerned as they are about agency workers, but there are many more issues that require agency workers to come in.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Q 117 It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time, Sir Alan.
Thank you, Julia, for coming in. I have read many of your organisation’s reports; they are incredibly authoritative and look at many wider issues of health, including stress. The nub of this Bill—the biggest issue—is when cities and economies are paralysed by major strikes that are called on a low turnout. I think that is the biggest issue out there for the man or woman in the street. Those days are incredibly stressful for people who have to reorganise their childcare and who cannot get a train, so that they have to stand in a rugby scrum to get on a bus. But it is a serious point—commuting is one of the most stressful activities that we now do—and so I would like to have your thoughts on whether we can make life easier for people and have less stress by having fewer such disturbances.
Julia Manning: Yes, I agree with you, and that stress applies not only to those who are working in the system, but to those who expect to be treated on that particular day. There are known risks already. I can draw from my own experience of people who have been referred, for instance, for cataract operations for sight loss and have had them postponed again, either because the staff cannot get there or because other staff—usually not directly the doctors, but those who facilitate the care—have taken action.
I recognise that that has been the exception rather than the rule in the NHS. I see that the repercussions of action taken by others, for instance in the transport sector, have a greater knock-on effect and a more direct impact than any action taken by the health service personnel themselves. But the scenario in which someone does not get treated for whatever reason and then has a fall—the worst-case scenario being that which results in their death—can be prevented. If we can put something in place so that that is less likely to happen, I would welcome that.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q 118 I was going to ask a question, but you actually answered it in your previous response about the exception to the rule in relation to how industrial action might affect access to services for patients. How often, in your opinion, do the exceptional circumstances that you are coming out with actually happen?
Julia Manning: I only looked back to 1982, I think; so for prior to 1982, I could not tell you.
Stephen Doughty
Q 119 Going back to the fundamentals of why you are appearing and giving evidence today, why did you think you were called to give evidence on the Bill? Why were you asked as a Government witness? Has your organisation lobbied for the Bill and the measures in it? Have you been meeting with Ministers arguing for the measures in the Bill?
Julia Manning: No, but we have a strong record on representing patient interests, talking about the patient experience and considering the wider landscape of change in legislation in terms of trends in population—
Stephen Doughty
Q 120 Sorry, but just to clarify, you did not ask for the Bill before it was published? Your organisation has not published a report or given a submission?
Julia Manning: No.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q 121 You just said that your organisation has a strong record on representing patient interests. In what way do you engage with patients? How representative are you? Are you represented across the country? How do you conduct that information-gathering exercise? How can you validate what you are saying in terms of representing people? Representation is a strong word.
Julia Manning: I agree, and right from the start it was something that we thought seriously about in terms of engaging not just with the front-line people who are doing the job and delivering services, but with those who receive them as well. The way in which we engage in all the research we do is that we have steering groups. We engage with the relevant charities. We do polling. We do a lot of one-to-one interviews with people who are either on the receiving end of services or involved in delivery. There is a lot of dialogue with people who know what they are talking about, either from a position of being at the front line of delivering services or of having received treatment.
Julie Elliott
Q 122 To follow up on that, I represent a constituency in the north-east of England. I am not aware of anything you have done with patient interest in the north-east of England. You might have done something. How have you looked at things in the north-east, for instance, in terms of engaging with representing patients? Not speaking to charities or anything else, but representing patients, which is the term you used.
Julia Manning: The one thing we did in your area was to hold a workshop looking at the emergence of health and wellbeing boards and how they would engage with the local population.
Julie Elliott
Q 124 About 30 out of a population of 4 million? Out of a population of 4 million in the north-east, about 30 people attended a workshop about one specific thing. Would you say that that represents patient interest?
Julia Manning: What I would say to you is that we are a small organisation focusing on particular areas of research. When we undertake research we make every effort to make people aware that we are doing it and encourage people to get involved.
Julie Elliott
Q 125 I totally accept that, but you said you represent patient interest. Would you like to amend that? Is it still your view that a workshop of 30 people out of a population of four million—
Julia Manning: That was my answer in response to your question about what we have done in your area. Let me give you another example. We did a piece of work that came out last year, looking at people with HIV in the population. We worked alongside all the major HIV patient charities and we specifically looked at the needs of older people, because more than half the people in the country now who have HIV are aged 50 or older and services are still organised for 25-year-olds. That is the kind of work we do, where we are thinking about the needs of under-served populations whose concerns have not been represented. This is the kind of thing that we will pull together and put into a policy document to present to those who are commissioning services and campaigning for improvement on behalf of patients.
Julie Elliott
Q 126 That is absolutely fine, but I question whether that is actually representing patient interest, which is what you said your organisation does. I struggle with the concept that your organisation is a representative body of patient interest. That is the point I am getting at. I am not having a go at any of the work you have done or how you have done it, but I struggle to reconcile what you said your organisation is there for—representing patient interest—with what you outlined that your organisation actually does.
Julia Manning: I welcome you to look at the reports on our website and see the work we have done over the past eight years.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Q 127 Clearly it is in patient interests not to have treatment disrupted by action taken in respect of stoppages with a very small turnout. We heard this morning, and I think we all agree, that it would be useful if there were statistics—and we are not aware of any—that quantified the indirect consequence of stoppages in terms of days lost and disruption. In your experience, and recognising that we have not got those figures, would you assess, from your research, your conversations and the work you have done, that the impact on patients has been significant in the past?
Julia Manning: I think it has been incredibly significant to every individual who has been affected by this. The figures I have show that in 2011, when action took place, about 7,000 people had their operations cancelled and tens of thousands of people had an appointment cancelled. I think that for every one of those, it was significant.
The Chair
Thank you, Ms Manning, for giving evidence to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Janet Cooke and David Sidebottom gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now move on to the next section of our investigation and take evidence from Janet Cooke, chief executive of London TravelWatch, and David Sidebottom, the passenger team director at Transport Focus. You have 45 minutes to answer questions, and it will be a question and answer session throughout. Before we start, I will just ask you to give a quick résumé of your situation and why you are here—briefly, if you can, for the members of the Committee, so that we can get on with the job of asking the questions. Ms Cooke, would you like to start?
Janet Cooke: I am Janet Cooke, and I am the chief executive of London TravelWatch. We were set up, in our current guise, under the Greater London Authority Act 1999. We are funded and supported by the London Assembly. We are run by a board who are appointed by the London Assembly following a public advertisement.
We are small organisation; our budget is just over £1 million, most of which is spent on staff. We have fewer than 16 full-time equivalent staff. Our role is to represent all users of Transport for London Services. That includes the tube, the underground and the buses, but also dial-a-ride and cyclists on the red route. Everything that TfL does, we represent the users of. We also represent all passengers using rail services in the London railway area, which is wider than the GLA area. The best way of putting it is that it extends to take in access to all of London’s five major airports, so we go down to Gatwick airport. We have a fully multi-modal role in representing those passengers and transport users.
We are an appeals body, so if people are dissatisfied with how a complaint they have made to an operator has been handled, they can come to us and appeal. That is for all the modes that we represent. We do some primary research, but with a very limited budget—we do very little primary research. We are, however, experts at looking at other people’s research and recycling it. We are also a statutory consultation body, so if you want to change the bus service or whatever, you have to consult with us.
Our entire remit is to act as the voice of transport users. There are two values that are particularly important to us. The first is independence. It is vital for our work that we are not only independent, but seen to be independent. Although we are funded through the political process, we are accountable to the London Assembly but our board make their own decisions based purely on the passenger interest. We are independent of operators and independent of the transport union. I have been chief executive since 2008.
David Sidebottom: Transport Focus is a non-departmental public body with statutory remits under the Railways Acts to represent Britain’s rail passengers, and under the Local Transport Acts to promote the interests of bus, coach and tram passengers in England outside of London. More recently, we were provided with powers in April to represent users of the strategic road network in England. Similar to Janet’s description, we take on individual representations from unhappy rail passengers and try to get a better outcome for them. In addition, we have a budget that we use to spend extensively on research to give us the evidence base to provide useful information to Government, train operators, bus operators and other stakeholder organisations.
Stephen Doughty
Q 128 Recognising what you have both said about independence and the role of an NDPB, have you, on behalf of those you represent, made representations to the Government arguing for the measures that are set out in the Bill?
Janet Cooke: No.
David Sidebottom: No.
Stephen Doughty
Q 129 And have any of the individuals or groups that you represent commented on any parts of the Bill, to your knowledge, in any great detail?
David Sidebottom: No.
Janet Cooke: No. Transport for London has put a submission in, and we sent some evidence to you saying that as a consumer body, we have no view on industrial relations policy.
Stephen Doughty
Q 130 So why do you think you have both been invited here today?
Janet Cooke: Presumably to talk about the impact that industrial action, or threats of industrial action, has on passengers.
Stephen Doughty
Q 131 But you do not have a view on how those should be dealt with.
David Sidebottom: No.
Janet Cooke: No.
Stephen Doughty
Q 132 There was a report from the GLA in 2011 and an independent review, both of which said that there needs to be an emphasis on the employer creating the conditions for dialogue to improve industrial relations, particularly in the transport sector, and thereby reducing disruption to service users. Are you able to comment on any progress in implementing those recommendations from the 2011 report from the GLA?
Janet Cooke: No. From time to time we try to follow up recommendations that the GLA or the Transport Committee in particular have made, if we have the resources to and if we think it is a particular issue that we should follow up. In terms of industrial action, however, we would not, although we would agree that there should be as much dialogue as possible so that it does not impact on passengers.
David Sidebottom: I cannot comment on the GLA, as our role is specifically outside of London. I will quickly mention one particular view that we have, which is about the impact on passengers of threats of action and the impacts of action directly. In the last five or six years, we have seen the emergence of rest-day working patterns and how short-notice voluntary action—that is probably the best way of describing it—can create uncertainty among passengers.
Stephen Doughty
Q 133 I assume you both also deal with complaints about passenger fares, increases and issues around ticketing and so on. Would you be able to comment on the role that trade unions have played in highlighting passenger concerns similar to those you are representing on the rise in fare complexity and so on?
David Sidebottom: Particularly through the research that we have done, we know that value-for-money ratings on Britain’s railway are a lot lower than overall satisfaction with rail journeys among passengers. As we get around to January, the time of year when regulated fares increase, we will see the unions do what they do and be quite vocal about the need for reinvestment in the railway. What we articulate is the view of the passenger, particularly through poor value-for-money ratings. That is something we challenge the Department on, in terms of franchising, individual operators and improving the lot for passengers.
Janet Cooke: In terms of the unions, we do not formally engage with them, but the unions have done good work over the years in essentially being proxy passengers if you cannot talk to passengers themselves. Our board has never called them to give evidence or to speak to the board formally, but if there is a board meeting—particularly one where we are looking at such things as applications to change ticket office opening hours or, more recently, TfL’s proposals to close ticket offices—it is usual for the unions to attend and be in the public gallery. At the chair’s discretion, they might be invited to say something giving the passenger perspective through the unions’ eyes, and our chairs have usually allowed them to do that. It has probably been helpful.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Q 134 It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. This is a question for both witnesses. You have spoken about the threat of action on the railways in particular. Do you have experience of people saying to you, “I am worried about the strike”, and perhaps changing their travel patterns and pushing traffic on to the roads and off the railways and the underground—all parts of TfL and the commuter lines—because of the threat of action?
David Sidebottom: On the slightly broader subject of disruption generally, we know that passengers crave timely information that is targeted at them specifically. In the early part of the summer, with the potential strike by Network Rail, both sides were able to negotiate right to the wire. The railway planning system is not sophisticated or agile enough to get emergency timetables up on the system and taken off again at short notice.
People are trying to make decisions about whether to take a journey. I have no evidence of people shifting on to the road, although I suspect that they probably did. They were thinking, “I need to be somewhere in two weeks’ time and there is a threat of a strike on that day.” That is the slight difference with the threat of strike action—bargaining seems to go right to the wire, which is probably inevitable in the game that is played, but for passengers that creates more uncertainty than engineering works on a bank holiday weekend. At least with engineering works, passengers know that it will happen, although they may not like it, and information can be put out to help them.
Seema Kennedy
Q 135 So you think overall that the threat of strikes can have a much broader effect that is perhaps difficult to quantify.
David Sidebottom: Passengers may innocently go on to websites to book a train ticket, unaware that there will be a strike. They may buy their ticket in advance for a day when there might be strike action. They can get their money back and that is sorted out, but if you are aware of the strike, you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I am not speaking on behalf of the train industry, but it is equally difficult for them. They can put all the emergency planning in place, but at what point do they allow it on to the systems to give passengers a definitive answer as to whether they can make a journey?
Janet Cooke: In outer London people are able to use their cars—certainly, looking at the BBC reports, there was a big increase in congestion—but for most commuters travelling into central London the car is not a realistic option because there is too much congestion. So there is crowding onto other modes. You made comments earlier about being packed in like sardines; that is the London commuter experience already. So if during peak times you have further congestion because one mode is unavailable that makes things very difficult. The threat of strikes is almost as disruptive, because people change their plans for the day.
Seema Kennedy
Q 136 In what people submit to you, do they talk about crowding, the stress in terms of organising their lives, business things and childcare, and about travelling on very crowded buses?
Janet Cooke: Yes, we have never done any formal research, so I have no sound evidence that I can quote, but we do get feedback from passengers. I think that 25 people contacted us during the summer specifically about the threat of the tube strikes. That is a lot for us. It gets mentioned in other activities and, by and large, people are not happy about it, but they tend to put up with it. They see it as part of London perhaps—I do not know.
Jo Stevens
Q 137 I must apologise, Sir Alan. I did not say in my previous intervention that it was a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I have a question for Janet, if I may. You did some research, in May 2014 I think, about the dangers presented by overcrowding on the London underground. Many employees on the underground share those concerns. Do you think it is right that they should have the right to take industrial action to address their and passengers’ health and safety concerns?
Janet Cooke: As I said earlier, we have no view on whether staff should be able to strike. Yes the underground is overcrowded, but I think that London Underground closes the network—restricts access, as you will all have experienced at Victoria station—if they think that the platforms are getting dangerously overcrowded. It is a measure of whether you think it feels very overcrowded. It is certainly very uncomfortable, but I am not sure that London Underground would run the system if it felt there were an absolute health and safety risk.
Jo Stevens
Q 138 Would you accept that trade unions have a role to play in highlighting those sorts of issues, including health and safety?
Janet Cooke: Trade unions definitely have a role. They have a close working relationship with passengers. They work with passengers so they can certainly highlight things to management.
Jo Stevens
Q 139 Do you also accept, if I do not push you too far into areas into which you do not want to stray, that facility time in the workplace— trade unions having time to carry out trade union duties— helps in generating those issues and resolving things such as health and safety concerns about overcrowding?
Janet Cooke: I think that we would expect Transport for London to be a good employer and to allow, as a good employer should, the appropriate legal time for the trade union activity that is required. I do not think I can go any further, I am afraid.
John Howell
Q 140 Do you think that the balance is right in the Bill? Is it likely to have an adverse effect on industrial relations?
Janet Cooke: I do not think that I have a view on that and, I will be honest, I am not sufficiently familiar with exactly what you are proposing to be able to comment. Without doing proper research, I could not give a view.
David Sidebottom: I think the same. We do lots of research into how passengers are disrupted, with Network Rail, train operators and passengers. If there were more frequent strikes and disruption on the railway caused by industrial action, we would perhaps be prompted to spend time and do some research on the impact felt by passengers. Like Janet, I have not formed a particularly strong view based on any evidence that we have gathered.
One point that I picked up from doing some background reading was notification of strike action. For rail passengers, whether it is seven days or 14 days, the issue of getting the information is the key thing. It is not just social media and websites, it is posters at stations and that kind of thing. That is probably the best help I can give in terms of answering the question.
John Howell
Q 141 I am slightly surprised that you do not have a firmer view on that, and on the balance between people’s ability to strike and the enormous impact on the travelling public.
David Sidebottom: I am interested, as a representative of a consumer organisation, in the impact on individuals of planned or unplanned engineering work or disruption such as industrial action. I am interested in the quality of information and how passengers are empowered to make a decision about where to go and how they make an alternative journey.
One thing we ask is for passengers to rank their priorities for improvement. We often see nothing in our research about information on the back of industrial action. It is about the things that are important to them: a punctual, reliable railway, good value for money and getting a seat.
Janet Cooke: Having done a little research on the internet on strikes that have been reported, certainly in the past six months there seems to have been an increasing amount of industrial activity in the London area, which has an impact. In the past six months we have had five actual strikes—three on the underground and two on Great Western—and four threatened strikes—three on National Rail and one on the tube. We have just had the last strike, which in the end did not have that much impact on passengers because Transport for London continued to run the service on the Waterloo and City line. Now DLR workers are balloting about strike action, so there certainly has been an increase in the amount of activity.
John Howell
Q 142 Would you like to sum up the overall impact?
Janet Cooke: It is the attrition. For the first strike, people can often make other arrangements. Strikes have a particular impact on people in jobs where they do not have flexibility. I could work from home if I could not get into work or I could start late and finish late, or whatever. People working in critical, front-line jobs, who do not have that flexibility, are affected disproportionately, because they have no options.
David Sidebottom: Back in 2009-10, London Midland inconvenienced passengers as a result of its inability to roster railway staff to work on Sundays. That is a traditional working pattern that was provided largely through overtime and informal arrangements. We have seen a bit of that with one or two other train operators in recent years, but not on a large scale.
The bigger impact for passengers is short notice and cancellations. It is not a week’s or two weeks’ notice. The ability of a train company to buy out those working arrangements is very much between it, the unions and the staff. It seems to be something that is not quite cured yet. I do not know how that would fit with the Bill, but it does come across as inconveniencing passengers slightly more.
Chris Stephens
Q 143 I just have one question for the organisations. If for any reason existing staff, in this case train drivers or bus drivers, were replaced by agency workers, who would be inadequately trained, that would cause both your organisations concern for passenger safety.
David Sidebottom: If that manifested itself to us through representations from passengers, it would of course, yes.
Janet Cooke: Whether they were staff employed by the operator or agency staff, if they were not properly trained, it would be inappropriate for them to work.
James Cartlidge
Q 144 I want to focus on the point about timing of ballots. You may be aware that the Bill introduces a four-month time limit. You are talking about the uncertainty caused by striking. It seems that it is on the transport network that these long-standing ballots have been used. What is your view? Do you support that time limit, so that there is greater certainty for yourselves and your passengers?
David Sidebottom: The message that we get loud and clear from passengers whenever there is any disruption, whether it be industrial action, bad weather, or engineering works is, “Get me out of the mess that you are putting me into. Give me the options, give me the information on which I can make choices. When I get up in the morning, is my train going to run, because there are three inches of snow outside and the wind has been blowing, or is there a threat of industrial action?” The requirement for quality information comes across loud and clear.
James Cartlidge
Q 145 When a strike actually takes place, does your organisation have an active role in that communication?
David Sidebottom: We scour the websites for information provided by a train company, whether it relates to weather, engineering works or strikes. I was talking with colleagues about this a couple of days ago. We were trying to count instances of action, leaving aside the industrial action with Great Western over the course of the summer. They were few and far between. There have been lots of threats of action, and that causes the uncertainty. As we have seen, particularly with weather disruption, the ability of a train company, Network Rail and bus operators to get information out to passengers in a timely, clear and effective way is the bigger challenge.
Janet Cooke: We would expect operators to provide that information. We just put information on our website. As David says, we keep a very close eye on the information that the operators are putting out and, particularly in London, information about alternative routes that people can take.
I suppose the one thing that we notice is that we get anything from double to five or six times the number of people visiting our website when industrial action is threatened. That is one of the few indicators that we have. So, people are desperately looking for information and it needs to be kept up to date. That is the other thing. The threat of strike action is obviously intended to be disruptive; it is the amount of services that actually run that matters. And obviously the operators will want to be as optimistic as they can be, but sometimes the strike action is not as had been intended, so it is also about keeping passengers up to date with accurate information throughout the day. It is not just the spin about which services are running. So, if people have got to work, they might be able to get home by the mode that they usually use. It is about that up-to-date information through the day as well.
Stephen Doughty
Q 146 Janet, you were quoting some statistics a moment ago about industrial action apparently increasing in London in recent years. Are you aware that London Underground and Transport for London use a statistical measure called lost customer hours?
Janet Cooke: Yes.
Stephen Doughty
Q 147 Obviously, that can reflect either lost customer hours due to industrial action or it can relate to other causes. Now, I accept that in the last four years there has been an increase in lost customer hours due to industrial action, but what is very telling is that in only four out of the last 12 years has the proportion of overall lost customer hours as a result of industrial action been larger than 10%; it has never been larger than 20%. So, the vast majority of lost customer hours are due to impacts other than strike action or other industrial action; I imagine that it is due to defective equipment, overcrowding, signal failures, adverse weather and so on. Therefore, do you agree that when you look at the overall customer experience, as you are doing, industrial action and its impacts must be kept in perspective?
Janet Cooke: I would agree with that, but the work that is essential in London is to keep London moving, because there is an ageing infrastructure and so many people are using it. The work to upgrade the tube lines, the new trains that the train companies are running and the works to upgrade the lines into London Bridge should make services more reliable and lead to a reduction in lost customer hours. So, the danger is that industrial action will represent a higher proportion of lost customer hours, when lost customer hours should be going down.
Stephen Doughty
Q 148 I agree, but even in the last four years—in 2011-12 and 2012-13, it barely registered. In 2011-12, 1.3% of lost customer hours resulted from industrial action; in 2012-13, it was 4.9%. I accept that the figure has been higher in the last two years, but these are relatively small numbers; I am not saying that they are not important, but they are relatively small compared with all those other things.
Janet Cooke: I agree, but I would also say that there is, quite rightly, intense media interest in anything like this. So, the headlines really big it up when industrial activity has an impact on passengers, which is probably part of what is meant to happen from the union perspective, but that all adds to passengers’ feeling that disruption is increasing.
Stephen Doughty
Q 149 But do you agree that there is a danger that if we make national Government policy and legislation for a very, very large area based on media feeling about something—the kind of rhetoric that we hear from some of us around this Committee table—?
Janet Cooke: We said earlier that we did not have the formal evidence to give you, but how the media reacts to things helps to inform passenger opinion; I think that that is probably as evidence-based as I can get.
Stephen Doughty
Q 150 David, I do not have the statistics for the rest of the UK transport network, but do you accept that there is a similar thing here, and that we should keep industrial action in perspective, taking into account other reasons for lost customer hours?
David Sidebottom: I think so. We have specifically asked passengers what the priorities should be for improvement, and we also ask whether they are satisfied with what they have got now. We have focused on those areas where there is high priority for improvement and a low level of satisfaction. Information provision is the key driver of dissatisfaction for Britain’s rail passengers, so we focused on that and how the problem manifests itself.
The challenge that we saw over the summer with Network Rail and the “will they/won’t they?” strike situation caused a dilemma for the industry as much as it did for passengers. That is when we put emergency timetable information on to websites and make it available to the public.
Rishi Sunak
Q 151 Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, if the numbers and the percentages seem small, I am puzzled, as you said before, that Londoners seem to have accepted that strikes are just part of London. It makes me think that the constant talk—are they going to happen, are they not going to happen?—and the uncertainty adds to the disruption to people’s lives, as well as the strikes themselves. Would that be a fair comment?
Janet Cooke: Yes, it does add to the uncertainty. My comment was not intended to be flippant, but from the feedback we get there is an air of resignation about commuting in the London area. It is going to be overcrowded; it is great when it works, but it does not always work as well as it might. Maybe my point was slightly inappropriate, but it is part of an overall feeling. I think that, as commuters into London, you just accept, if you commute a long distance into London, what the experience tends to be like.
Rishi Sunak
Q 152 Picking up on something you said earlier, I am interested in how different types of people on different income levels are affected by strikes. You mentioned that people in certain jobs are probably more easily able to work from home—for example, people in office jobs—than people in shift work and lower-paid jobs, where that is more difficult. Will you talk about your experience of that?
Janet Cooke: We at London TravelWatch have not done much research on that. The only thing I could say is that we are in the middle of doing some focus-group research—not on strike action, but things sometimes emerge in focus groups that you are not necessarily expecting—and certainly one or two that I observed a couple of weeks ago were talking about the travel experience in the London area and ways of getting to work. Spontaneously, because there have been quite a lot of tube strikes, there was a lot of discussion about strikes and their impact on people’s lives. These were people on very low incomes whose employers had paid for taxis to get them to work. This is not necessarily statistically accurate; it just happened to be spontaneously coming up in focus groups I was observing.
Julie Elliott
Q 153 You have both talked about your organisations representing passenger feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said that the overwhelming numbers of days lost through delays and everything else—even in London, the figure is about 80%—is not down to any form of industrial action. I have to say that, outside London, I have not had any lost journey in my regular commute from the north-east in the past five or six years due to industrial action, although I have had many for other reasons. Have you got anything to say about whether the causes of a lost day makes any difference to the impact on the life of a passenger, a member of the community? Secondly, are you aware that nothing in the Bill would impact on any of the rail stoppages that have happened in recent years in London, because they would meet the thresholds on the ballot that they had already held?
David Sidebottom: On the general point about impact, the national rail passenger survey that we run gathers around 60,000 passengers’ views about their journey every year and the biggest driver of dissatisfaction is not just about the fact that there has been disruption but about the way it is managed. It is back to the information story and how you get me out of the situation you have put me in. So there is an impact there.
In answer to the earlier question about the impact on individuals, it is quite telling that when I was at Piccadilly station trying to travel home a few weeks ago on a delayed journey, listening to some conversations that were going on among passengers—people on zero-hours contracts, for example, who were not going to get paid that day because they could not get to their job—it does not just affect people who work 9 to 5. The level of impact can vary.
Julie Elliott
Q 154 I am well aware that not all people work 9 to 5. I travel 300 miles from my home every week to come to work—at least, the London part of my work—but I was asking whether it makes any difference to the impact on somebody’s life what has actually caused the delay or disruption, bearing in mind the tiny percentage that is caused by industrial action?
David Sidebottom: Not from the research that we have done, no.
Janet Cooke: I do not have much to add. If your service is not running or you are delayed excessively, it really does not matter. With a strike, you think, at least it will be over tomorrow. If it is a problem on the network, then you might not be so hopeful.
Dr Cameron
Q 155 To what extent is the evidence you are presenting today applicable to the experience in Scotland and, perhaps, Wales, given that much of your work appears to be in England and particularly in London?
Janet Cooke: By definition, we represent transport users in and around London and its commuter belt. The experience is probably not dissimilar, but I could not comment.
David Sidebottom: On rail in Scotland and Wales, we are a GB-wide body on rail passenger representation. The information that we gather covers England, Scotland and Wales. We work very closely with Transport Scotland and provide information there. In fact, the rail passenger satisfaction survey is a key target with the new franchise arrangement between Transport Scotland and Abellio ScotRail.
Dr Cameron
Q 156 In terms of your own work, such as underground journeys, there is nothing about tube journeys in Scotland or anything like that that you can say.
Janet Cooke: No. We have never looked at that, to be honest.
The Chair
There are no further questions. We thank you both for attending; it has been very informative. We will now move on to the next session.
Examination of Witnesses
Shane Enright, Sara Ogilvie and Dave Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
May I thank you for coming in before your time? It is always a bit nerve-racking for anybody. We will move on to the oral evidence session for Amnesty, Liberty and the Blacklisting Support Group. This period runs up to 3.45 pm. I will invite you to come forward and give us a short address, a résumé of your role in this. We will then move on to questions and answers from both sides. If you can make your answers fairly succinct and brief, that would be helpful, because we can get more in if we do it that way. Without further ado, Ms Ogilvie, would you like to introduce yourself?
Sara Ogilvie: My name is Sara Ogilvie. I am a policy officer at Liberty, the human rights organisation. The reason why we care about the Trade Union Bill is that we think that trade union rights are a fundamental part of the human rights framework. They are part of freedom of association, which is article 11 of the European convention on human rights. We also care because we think that membership of a trade union helps individuals to enforce some of their workplace rights and the workplace entitlements conferred on them by Parliament. That is our general interest in this area.
Shane Enright: I am Amnesty International’s trade union campaign manager. I am also the global trade union adviser to Amnesty International. We share the concerns that Liberty has expressed. Amnesty International firmly believes in the right to form and join trade unions, to collectively bargain and to strike. They are universal human rights and critical enabling rights that facilitate people to defend their livelihoods and working conditions and to protect the public services on which the vulnerable are most often dependent.
Dave Smith: I am an ex-construction worker who was blacklisted because of my trade union activities by some of the largest construction companies in the UK. I am now the secretary of the Blacklist Support Group—the justice campaign set up after the blacklist files were discovered in 2009. I am also the co-author of the book, “Blacklisted: The secret war between big business and union activists”, which goes into the detail of the links between the police and big business against trade unions. Because of our experience as blacklisted workers and because of the research I have done for the book, I have grave concerns about some of the elements of the Trade Union Bill.
Stephen Doughty
Q 157 I have a couple of questions that are more directed towards Sara and Shane, and then I have a question for Dave. I have carefully read what Liberty and Amnesty have had to say on this. The British Institute of Human Rights made some strongly worded statements. I understand that there are particular concerns on the intrusion of the state into freedoms of association and assembly for trade union members; the undermining of the right to a private family life in some aspects; and the jeopardising of the UK’s history and the precedent of supporting peaceful protest and the right to express views. Could you just take each of those issues briefly and explain where your key concerns lie and which international conventions and UK laws you think we are calling into question with the Bill?
Sara Ogilvie: As I said at the start, article 11 of the European convention on human rights is the right to freedom of association, and that includes an explicit protection for joining trade unions. That is also the article that protects our right to freedom of assembly, which is essentially the right to protest. I am concerned about the proposals in the Bill and the associated consultation because of the impact they will have on the right to picket and protest. For a picket to be lawful, clause 9 of the Bill would require the union to appoint a picket supervisor, to name that person in advance and to give their contact details to the police in advance. It would also require that individual to wear an armband on the day and to carry a letter of authorisation that they would have to show to the police or to anyone else who asked to see it. That is extremely concerning to me.
The thought that we would require a person in 2015 to wear an armband and carry a letter of authorisation at the behest of the state in order to exercise their rights does not seem right. In the particular context of trade union rights, I am sure that colleagues here will be able to talk in more detail about the concerns on blacklisting, but I think that the collaboration of the police in the process of blacklisting gives strength of feeling to why trade union members would not want to provide advance information to the police about who they are and how they can be contacted.
On the one hand, I worry that the provisions are discriminatory. Why would they apply to people on a picket, rather than to anyone attending a protest in general? But when you think about that, it is even more worrying: what if the proposals were applied to everyone who wanted to protest? It is ridiculous that they would have to undergo such processes. It seems to me that that is certainly going to bring us into conflict with the European convention on human rights because it is an absolute violation of the right to peaceful protest.
Shane Enright: I would like to expand on that a little. Article 11 of the European convention allows freedom of association and particular trade union rights to be circumscribed only in very particular cases. I am particularly disappointed by the impact assessments associated with the Bill because it seems to me that absolutely no case is made for the legislative provisions. Simply to assert, as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills does, that the provisions are compatible, while providing absolutely no evidence or justification of where in law that compatibility exists, risks opening up a very serious legislative and legal conflict if the measures proceed as intended.
I would like to touch on the collective bargaining implications of the Bill. It seems to me that the provisions to limit facility time and the proposals to ban check-off arrangements in workplaces would be entirely without precedent in peacetime Britain. As you will know, the provision of facility time is governed by collective agreements between unions and employers on behalf of employees in the workplace—such matters are not determined by the state. It seems to me entirely unprecedented for the Government to retain reserve powers in clause 13 to interfere—it is interference—with what effectively should be a matter for agreement, through collective bargaining, between employers and workers in a workplace, facilitated, of course, by their union.
Facility time is critical. We know from all the evidence—I am sure that the Committee will hear more in due course—that effective industrial relations in the workplace are facilitated by union representatives who can assist in many ways and in many domains. The amount of facility time that is appropriate can vary according to circumstances. For instance, when a workplace is undergoing substantial change—for example, where there is reorganisation, or where redundancies are being faced—it is not unusual for an employer to agree with a union to increase facility time so that representations can be made on behalf of employees in a free and collective way to facilitate that change. It absolutely beggars belief that the Government are making that proposal.
On check-off, I cannot see why it is the Government’s responsibility to interfere, yet again, in a voluntary arrangement between employers and employees. For instance, in my own workplace, we have not only a check-off arrangement that is voluntarily entered into and governed by the collective agreement between the employer and the union, but bicycle loans to encourage staff to travel to work healthily. We also have computer loans—a loan of which I have taken advantage—which of course supports efficiency when I choose to work from home.
Stephen Doughty
Q 158 And of course, as MPs we also have the ability to check-off on our own salaries for various purposes. You are obviously both keen observers of the legal framework in other countries around the world. These measures are being described as some of the most restrictive globally. What sort of league would the Bill put us in? With what countries would we be roughly comparable in terms of the level of restriction on basic rights?
Shane Enright: There are no universal comparators by which I can give a simple percentage, but I will refer to the digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. The jurisprudence of the ILO is absolutely clear and unequivocal in relation to a number of elements in the Bill. On the question of ballot thresholds of 50%, paragraph 556 states:
“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”
In paragraph 592—by the way, these are summaries of the decisions of the supervisory body of the ILO—a really important point is made about the economic impact of strikes. The ILO says:
“By linking restrictions on strike action to interference with trade and commerce, a broad range of legitimate strike action could be impeded. While the economic impact of industrial action and its effect on trade and commerce may be regrettable, such consequences in and of themselves do not render a service ‘essential’, and thus the right to strike should be maintained.”
There is more and more jurisprudence that points to the inadequacy of the legislative proposals.
Sara Ogilvie: From the perspective of the European convention on human rights, the way the court that is responsible for that system looks at the issue is to see whether the essence of the right is infringed and whether the right is rendered illusory. My concern is that the proposals in the Bill would absolutely render the right illusory, largely by creating a system of bureaucracy and hurdles that people have to overcome. In doing so, that would put us on the side of those countries that have fallen foul of the human rights system, rather than on the side of the people who come up with a system that is effective and that works.
The Chair
Before you move on, would you like to add anything here, Mr Smith?
Dave Smith: My case is actually at the European Court of Human Rights now. During my case, the British Government intervened when it was at the Court of Appeal and admitted in their admission that article 8 and article 11 had been engaged during the process of blacklisting. I am concerned that there are restrictions on trade unions already, and outside of the existing legal framework, we clearly have large multinational companies breaching the human rights of British citizens—hard-working British citizens, I hasten to add. If there are to be restrictions on what is going on—there are scandals in industrial relations that need legislation—it should be primarily on the side of big business that is breaching our human rights, rather than on the side of construction workers who have basically been standing up for bog-standard legal rights.
The Chair
Can I just point something out to you? I said at the beginning that we need to be succinct in both the questions and the answers, and we have recovered all the time that we had to gain. This is fascinating and interesting stuff, but it is your time and the Committee’s time to ask questions of you. We only have a small amount time remaining, so if you could make your answers a little bit more succinct, that will be helpful to you and the Committee.
Stephen Doughty
Q 159 Dave, you might be aware that there were a number of debates on blacklisting in the previous Parliament that revealed quite shocking revelations, particularly in the construction sector. We heard about current and former Members of the House who had been blacklisted and their horrific experiences. I know that other Governments across the UK have taken measures to deal with the matter. Is your primary concern that there are a whole series of measures in the Bill that could essentially make it easier to blacklist workers? I am particularly thinking about the provisions around picketing.
Dave Smith: Very specifically, the issue that I am concerned about as a blacklisted worker is the undoubted police collusion in blacklisting. It is not even a question anymore. Peter Francis, the undercover police officer who spied on Stephen Lawrence’s family, has given statements that were read out in Parliament in which he admitted spying on the Fire Brigades Union, Unison, the National Union of Teachers, the Communication Workers Union and a number of unions in the construction industry. Having seen the blacklist files that were seized by the Information Commissioner’s Office, Peter Francis said that some of the information came directly from the special branch registry database.
There is another undercover police officer called Mark Jenner from a section of special branch called the special demonstrations squad. In the 1990s, I stood on picket lines with him and attended meetings with him. The man actually chaired some union-based meetings when he was an undercover police officer sent to spy on trade union activists. There is a section within the special branch called the industrial division, and its entire purpose is to spy on trade unions and give the information to big business. It is quite open about that; it has been on BBC documentaries. I am not a conspiracy theorist; this stuff has all been published.
The Chair
Can I just point out that we have a very small window of time—
Dave Smith: Okay. My point—
The Chair
Would you just let me finish? You have gone wide of the mark. You have to try to stick to the question in hand, if you can.
Dave Smith: Very quickly, when we put in a complaint the IPCC said that every special branch in the country provided information about prospective employees to businesses and blacklisting organisations. My concern about the Bill is geared around the concept of picket supervisors having to have their names provided to the police. If the names have to be provided, it is inevitable that the police will collate them and that they will appear on some kind of database somewhere. I am very sceptical about the state keeping a list of picket supervisors. Any member of the public is allowed to come and ask for the picket supervisor authorisations as well, so it could be that employers are also coming and picking up the names, and members of the public. Potentially, you have three separate lists of trade union activists being developed by members of the public, employers and the state, and that could clearly be turned into a state-sponsored blacklist.
The reason I am saying that is that once the police information about trade union activists is written on a database or a computer somewhere, give me any possible way that you could exclude special branch from finding the information. There is a section there that gives the information to big businesses; they are quite open about that. That is my fear—that this will turn into a state-sponsored blacklist.
The Chair
Thank you very much. This is your time and the Committee’s time and we have little of it left, so could you shorten your answers? The Committee members are already in the mood to ask shorter questions.
James Cartlidge
Q 160 I will try my best. I welcome the three of you. We respect your passion for all your principles and none of us here is against the right of people to belong to a union or their right to withdraw their labour. The key concern that we, and the Government, have is that there have been a number of strikes in recent years called on very small turnouts and with small percentages of support, which have caused huge disruption for commuters and for people wanting to take their children to school. It is about that disruption.
You talk about workers’ rights. Do you at least accept that commuters and parents have rights as well and that the rights should be balanced within the legislation that we bring forward?
Shane Enright: Let me first say that strikes are technically a matter of absolute last resort. They tend to represent a breakdown in good industrial relations in workplaces and to that extent it is clearly regrettable when situations reach that point. But I have cited ILO jurisprudence and international law and, under the provisions of ILO convention 87 in particular, inconvenience to the public is not a legitimate basis upon which a state can restrict the right to strike.
I also make the point that the numbers of strike days that have taken place annually in the past decade are the lowest for many years. The number is currently at 0.8 million per year, which equates, across the entire workforce, to each worker taking strike action for one day every 15 years. That is a historically low level. If we compare that to the benefits that trade unions can add through effective collective bargaining in the workplace, I would say that the public are convenienced by having strong and effective trade unions.
James Cartlidge
Q 161 I shall try to be concise, by taking one fact. In 2011, 62% of England’s schools were closed by an ATL teachers union ballot with a 25% turnout. Do you think that that is fair on the parents and pupils?
Shane Enright: Absolutely. We have a democratic arrangement in this country whereby people in the political sphere are elected by a majority of those taking part in a ballot. We do not have an arrangement in this country, in this sphere or in any other sphere, where absentee voters—people who choose not to vote—are counted as voting against, which is precisely the proposal in this Bill.
Sara Ogilvie: Focusing on the issue of thresholds in particular, it is important to remember that, regardless of what the turnout is in a vote, trade union members are entirely entitled under law not to participate in strike action if they do not support it. So they can exercise their discretion to choose at the moment of the strike. Similarly, they cannot be penalised by their union if they do choose to strike. I worry that if we focus on the issue of thresholds and then say, “Actually, that doesn’t show whether people wanted to strike or not,” that is not really an accurate reflection of what is going on.
I support what has been said here: strikes absolutely cause disruption. That has always been the case and will always be the case, but—
James Cartlidge
You do not have a problem with that.
Sara Ogilvie: Of course I have a problem with it. I have to experience it, but, actually, human rights cause a bit of disruption. They are not always enforced in situations in which the whole of society would want that to happen. But I am trying to think of other human rights and I cannot think of another situation whereby if I wanted to exercise my right, I would have to go to a vote and all of my peers would also have to vote to exercise their right and that would be the system you would have to go through. This seems to be something that we would not accept for other human rights and it is not clear to me why we would impose it in this situation and not others.
Dave Smith: My concern about the thresholds and the turnouts that people are talking about is that a 50% threshold is being asked for in order to have a strike action, which might be about unpaid wages or asbestos. Of course, with a 50% threshold most of the people sitting in this room asking questions would not have got elected into Parliament, because most of you have not got more than 50%.
The Chair
May I stop you for a minute, Mr Smith? It is not really your duty to question the role of the Committee and Members of Parliament. We have decided and agreed to invite you in to give evidence to the Committee. You cannot then criticise the whole process of allowing you to do so.
Dave Smith: I do apologise. My point really was this question about why it is that the trade unions exercising a democratic right—a human right under the European convention on human rights—are penalised to such an extent, exactly as Sara said. Nobody else in any other circumstances in the country is being given this. If there is disruption because of strikes about asbestos or unpaid wages, the people responsible for it are the employers, not the trade unions.
The Chair
Can I just help you? We have got a lot of names down to ask questions and you have got a very short period of time to answer. If you feel that you want to give a fuller answer than you can on the floor, it is open for the Committee to receive written documentation. If, on any of the questions put to you, you do not think that you fully replied, you are more than entitled to submit more evidence in writing to the Members of the Committee, who will read that and take it into account in their deliberations.
Chris Stephens
Q 162 I want to ask Amnesty and Liberty if they have done any analysis on the basis of thresholds and the impact that would have on gender equality issues. For example, female workers are probably more affected by shift changes than male workers. Have you done any analysis on the democratic mandate of the devolved Administrations and other public bodies in terms of check-off and facility time as proposed by the Government?
Mr Smith, a lot of people watching these proceedings will wonder what a blacklist is. What are the consequences for a picket supervisor who is put on a blacklist?
Sara Ogilvie: On the issue of gender inequality, this was a surprising statistic to me: there are more female trade union members than male trade union members. So it seems likely that reducing the right to strike of trade unionists will impact more on women. Certainly, when we look at low-paid jobs across society, many more women are employed in them than men.
I am ashamed to say that I do not know a huge amount about how much it will impact on the devolution settlement. I am aware, however, that the proposals in the Bill do not seem to reflect adequately the make-up of government, local authorities and other public bodies in Scotland and Wales. If the proposals are to be introduced—I hope that they will not be—there will need to be much further thought about how they will work in practice.
Shane Enright: Briefly, I have seen figures—I do not have them in front of me—from the TUC that indicate that 72% of those who will be affected by these public sector strike thresholds are women. Women represent a greater proportion of employees in the public sector and, as mentioned, are now a majority of trade unionists overall in our economy. Inevitably, there will be a disproportionate impact on women workers and their ability to defend their interests, pay and conditions in the public sector.
Dave Smith: Blacklisting is not a myth. When we talk about this, people sometimes think we are making it up. The impact on the 3,213 people whose files were found in the construction industry has been that every time they applied for a job, because their name was on this list—this is the key thing for us: the police are going to be holding a list, and the police have been complicit in the blacklisting that has been going on in the building industry. The building industry will not be something special; it will happen everywhere. The impact was that every time we applied for a job, our name was checked to see if it was on this list. If it was, you were dismissed or not given a job in the first place. It means that people had massive periods of unemployment, even though they were very skilled workers, and, prior to becoming involved in a union, had unblemished unemployment records. It means that people lost their houses. It means family breakdowns and divorces, and in some cases, we have reported that there have been suicides.
To be crystal clear about this, I would like to quote something put out last week by Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Costain, Kier, Laing O’Rourke, Sir Robert McAlpine, Skanska and VINCI. They changed their defence to say that they were actually involved in blacklisting and have produced new documents. The statement from their PR people says that the new documents
“contain a full and unreserved apology for our part in a vetting information system run in the construction industry first through the Economic League and subsequently through The Consulting Association; we recognise and regret the impact it had on employment opportunities for those workers affected and for any distress and anxiety it caused to them and their families.”
My fear, which I keep repeating, is that blacklisting exists and that police involvement in blacklisting is a fact. Last week, I was at the High Court. Theresa May has set up the Pitchford inquiry—
The Chair
Mr Smith, I have been really quite kind. You went very wide of the mark. If you get the documentation you refer to and wish to submit a new written piece to the Committee, I will more than willingly distribute it, but I am going to move the Committee on at this stage. We need to get more questions in, because we have little time left.
Victoria Prentis
Q 163 Amnesty and Liberty are both doughty defenders of human rights around the world in terms of abuses such as torture and execution, particularly in the case of Amnesty. I do not know if you have the Bill in front of you, but subsection (8) of new section 220A, inserted by clause 8, states:
“While present where the picketing is taking place, the picket supervisor must wear a badge, armband or other item that readily identifies the picket supervisor as such.”
Are you telling me that the wearing of an armband really concerns you?
Shane Enright: Absolutely. It is a way of singling people out. It is a requirement that is absolutely unique to this group of protesters. Why should trade unionists be required to undertake a process of identification when they are protesting that others are not required to? It is discriminatory.
Victoria Prentis
Q 164 I understand that the current code of practice says that everybody should wear an armband. That is not normally enforced, of course. Normally, the organisers of protests do wear an armband, but that has not caused particular difficulty.
Sara Ogilvie: There is quite a clear distinction that it is important we draw between when something is in a code of practice or when we do it because it is good practice and we think it will make things easier, and when there is a legal requirement for something to happen. When there is a legal requirement, there are legal consequences. The consequences of this would be not only the person identifying themselves and all the concerns we have heard about blacklisting, but also, if that requirement is not complied with, it is a reason to void the entire strike. That is a secondary consequence of this. It seems a very disproportionate response. It is those two elements.
Victoria Prentis
Q 165 I am glad you used the word “proportionate”, because the Government could, of course, have carried on from the code and said that everybody had to wear a badge or an armband.
Sara Ogilvie: And that is in the consultation document.
Victoria Prentis
Q 166 Which would have been difficult if someone had left them at home; it would not have been proportionate to have voided the whole strike. But surely for the organiser of a particular event, it is not too much to ask them to identify themselves.
Sara Ogilvie: I think we have to be honest about the fact that it is quite a big issue. There are so many human rights issues that we think, “Maybe these are trivial”; there is quite a lot of talk about that at the moment. But for individuals who have wanted, for example, to wear a chain with a crucifix on, that is something that the courts have said is not a trivial human rights issue. When Rosa Parks was asked to sit at the back of a bus, some people then would have said that that was a trivial human rights issue. I absolutely think that asking people to identify themselves, to risk going on a public list, as a result of which they might be discriminated against, and to jump through lots of hoops in order to exercise their rights, that really concerns me; it is not me feigning affectation.
Victoria Prentis
Q 167 And you feel that this is completely different from a code?
Sara Ogilvie: When people choose to do something, and when people are required to do something and there are very strong consequences because of that requirement, I think that is a difference, yes, and it is a significant one.
Seema Kennedy
Q 168 I want to go back to this picket supervisor code. If you have large public assemblies—even on things such as school trips, which I have supervised, I have to wear an orange tabard. Is it the actual armband that is causing the great objection? You might have thousands of people on the streets. Surely, just for public order, somebody needs to be able to identify who is in charge.
Sara Ogilvie: If we want to compare it, there are rules in place that govern marches and other kinds of protest. There are not rules about demonstrations; there are rules about marches. If you have a rule about a march, then the organiser must be known to the police. But that organiser could be, if you take the union example, Frances O’Grady; everybody knows who she is. If you have someone who is in a local trade union, they might not want to be known; as we have heard, there are really serious consequences. It is not so much about the organisation; it is about the identification, and the fact that that can then be used to void a whole strike.
Seema Kennedy
Q 169 Nobody wants to condone blacklisting—absolutely not—and it is very much to be welcomed that in the building industry we are moving away from that. [Interruption.] I sense some scepticism, looking at the Benches. But of course we want to move away from that; people should have the right to strike. I wonder whether there is an objection to the use of an armband particularly.
Dave Smith: What there is an objection to is that if you are on a school trip, you are not being asked by the police to provide your name, and if I am on a picket line, I am not breaking any laws. I have not done anything illegal, and without any suspicion, or due suspicion that I have broken laws, the police will come and take my name.
A number of people have mentioned the London underground during this debate. For the London underground, you might need a picket supervisor on every single station; on large stations, you might need a picket supervisor on different entrances. And for the RMT or whichever union, they would have to provide a list of possibly hundreds—literally—of picket supervisors to the police, and they have not committed any crime. That information will be collated and will be put on a police database, and we have fears where that goes. How can you stop it being given to special branch?
Seema Kennedy
Q 170 I understand that, but this is a side issue of blacklisting, which the Government are consulting on—[Interruption]—they are.
Just on the school trips issue, there are checks that one would have to go through; you need Disclosure and Barring Service checks, and things like that. Okay, perhaps it was not the best analogy. All I am saying is that in terms of public order—
Sara Ogilvie: In terms of public order, the usual rules that would apply to public demonstrations or public protests already apply. These are specific additional requirements that are being placed on pickets, and pickets tend to be pretty small as well, so the requirements seem disproportionate. As I say, the normal rules apply; these are additional ones.
Shane Enright: Can I add something, and I will do it in one sentence? I do not understand what problems this Bill is seeking to solve. I simply do not see the evidence before me of disruptive pickets, of intimidation or violence on picket lines; there is simply very little evidence of it. Twenty million days a year are lost through workplace injury or workplace illness; 0.8 million days a year are lost through strikes.
Seema Kennedy
Q 171 The thing is, we want to get rid of all days lost. Yes, of course it is a small proportion and getting smaller, and we want to tackle days lost through workplace injury and things like that as well, but even though it is a small proportion, it is still having an effect on our economy and it is still disrupting people’s lives, the way they organise their families and their travel. That and the idea of threshold is the whole thrust of the Bill. I know that Liberty has spoken about the balance between employers and employees, but we go back to the people whose lives are disrupted and who have not taken part in that ballot. They cannot say whether their schools or trains are not running on that day.
Shane Enright: I appreciate that there is disruption, but what is entirely absent from the Bill is any recognition or acknowledgement of the positive roles that trade unions play in the delivery of effective and efficient public and private services for the common good. I understand that the Royal College of Nursing has done an impact analysis of the role of trade unions in the health sector that comes to the conclusion that effective industrial relations involving trade unions has substantial positive impacts on safety, on the levels and quality of workplace training and across a range of key issues. So rather than talking about trade unions as necessarily being civil actors that have negative economic consequences—
The Chair
Sorry, can I stop you? We have very little time left and this is not the place for a conversation; it is a question and answer session for Members to ask questions of the witnesses. I am going to draw this section to a close and move on.
Stephen Doughty
Q 172 I want to go back to the beginning. Obviously, Liberty and Amnesty have outlined a whole range of issues with the Bill that they are not happy with. In terms of the potential for legal challenge, do you think it is inevitable, given the concerns we heard from Thompsons Solicitors earlier today, that aspects of the Bill, if not its entirety, are going to be subject to legal challenge?
Shane Enright: I think it is utterly inevitable. The European convention and the European Court exist for a reason, and I cannot see that the rights holders concerned would not challenge this at the European Court. Let us be clear here: trade unions are effectively the voice of workers and workers have universal human rights.
Stephen Doughty
Q 173 Sara, do you share that view?
Sara Ogilvie: Yes, I share that view in terms of the protesting and picketing elements we have discussed. I also think that when we look, perhaps not at individual elements of the Bill—we have spoken about thresholds; we could talk about a lot more if we had the time, but we obviously do not—but the cumulative impact of those proposals will create so many bureaucratic obstacles and hurdles that you have to get through to call a strike that the right to strike will be illusory. That is a key area on which there will be challenge to the legislation. I should also just say that even if we ignore human rights arguments, the fact of the matter is that when we create lots of rules and laws, the people involved—trade unions and employers—who want to get these enforced will go to court. That is going to be expensive for them.
Stephen Doughty
Q 174 So in that way it is very similar to the gagging Bill and other measures that have been taken by the Government?
Sara Ogilvie: Certainly, we have seen a number of trends whereby the previous Government had different pieces of legislation that looked like they were trying to shut down various parts of civil society from engaging in public debate. What I am concerned about with the Bill is that it attacks freedom of association from a number of angles, but it will just create a lot of cost and a lot of regulation for the whole spectrum of actors involved.
The Chair
In the couple of minutes we have left, we have two Members still to go, so I ask them to make it very short. If we run out of time and the witnesses want to reply to the Committee, they can certainly email us.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Q 175 I am very grateful, Sir Alan, and very happy to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I apologise for being late: I was on the Backbench Business Committee. The Bill covers the whole of industry, but we have heard from Government Members this afternoon that they are particularly concerned about measures impacting on public transport and schools. What impact on public transport, on the closure of a school or on families would the closure of a factory in Gateshead have, for instance?
Sara Ogilvie: Perhaps I can interpret your question to mean, what advantages do trade unions and the right to strike bring to society? I think we get a lot of advantages. The right to strike is perhaps the most vilified and obvious tool in the trade union toolkit, but it is just the stick in the carrot-and-stick analogy. Actually, the substantial part of trade union work is helping to resolve workplace disputes, which keeps our industries up and running, helping people deal with their problems and helping to ensure that we do not escalate to a strike. Those activities can be undertaken only if there is a reason for recalcitrant employers to participate in debates. Without strikes, they will not.
The Chair
I am afraid we have run out of time. We have to stop here because there are more witnesses to come in the next session. We thank you all for your attendance. If there is any other matter that you want to raise with members of the Committee, please put it in writing to the Clerks and we will certainly distribute it. Thank you very much for your attendance.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonathan Isaby and Tony Wilson gave evidence.
The Chair
Q 176 Thank you both for attending the hearing to answer the questions that Committee members will put to you. It is a strange way of doing things, but we want to ask you to introduce yourselves in a very short, precise manner and tell us about your backgrounds and why you are here. We will then move to a question-and-answer session, with Members asking you questions and you giving replies. Without further ado, Mr Wilson, would you like to start?
Tony Wilson: My name is Tony Wilson. I am managing director of Abellio London and Surrey. We are one of the London bus operators running red buses. We operate about 650 buses in London and employ 2,600 staff, about 2,200 of whom at least are represented by Unite the union under a recognition agreement.
Jonathan Isaby: My name is Jonathan Isaby. I am the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance—an organisation founded in 2004 that seeks to represent taxpayers across the UK. We have tens of thousands of supporters—about 80,000 supporters across the United Kingdom. We want to see lower, simpler taxes and less Government waste. We have conducted a lot of research over the years into how taxpayers’ money subsidises trade unions, and we have campaigned for that subsidy to be reduced as far as possible. Hence, I am delighted to have the opportunity to help the Committee with its deliberations today.
Stephen Doughty
Q 177 My first question is for Jonathan. I have asked this of the TaxPayers Alliance previously. You stated that you have 80,000 supporters, but how representative of the UK are they? How do you consult them? Do they pay you money? How are they distributed across the geographical regions of the UK, income brackets and so on? Give us a flavour of the people you claim to represent.
Jonathan Isaby: I think you asked me exactly the same question when I appeared before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs the other year.
Stephen Doughty
And you could not answer it.
Jonathan Isaby: I will give you exactly the same answer, which is that we have a broad swathe of support from across the whole United Kingdom. We regularly talk to our supporters through weekly email bulletins. We hold events up and down the country, and we engage with politicians across the political divide.
Stephen Doughty
Q 178 I am surprised that you cannot answer, given that I have asked you this before. How have you consulted them about the Bill, and how many of them have lobbied you to see the Bill and all its provisions introduced?
Jonathan Isaby: I have a daily email dialogue with supporters from across the country.
Stephen Doughty
Q 179 How many have written to you about this out of the 80,000?
Jonathan Isaby: I have not kept a tally, but it is an issue that exercises supporters. They have given me great encouragement to campaign on it.
Stephen Doughty
Q 180 Okay. You spoke a minute ago about transparency in political funding—the funding that unions give for political causes and so on. Given that you speak out on those issues, would your organisation like to be subject to the rules that the Bill will impose? I have been looking at a very interesting website called “Who Funds You?”, which basically says that the TaxPayers Alliance does not display funding information on its website, does not name its organisational funders, does not declare amounts given by organisational funders, does not name individual funders and does not declare amounts given by individual funders. Why is it one rule for you and one rule for trade unions?
Jonathan Isaby: Well, we are subject to zero subsidy from the taxpayer. We are entirely funded by private individuals. We take the view that when taxpayers’ money is being spent, there needs to be a very high standard of transparency, so that taxpayers can see what is being doing with their money. We have a very broad base of support—thousands of people are financially supporting us. We do not publish their names and we are not obliged to do so. We respect their right to privacy. Some individuals decide to identify themselves as supporters.
Stephen Doughty
Q 181 So why should trade unions be subject to very intrusive explanations of all sorts of levels of funding? The Bill goes well beyond the established consensus on political funding and transparency. Why is it one rule for trade unions and a different rule for you?
Jonathan Isaby: As the Taxpayers Alliance has shown before, trade unions get a taxpayer subsidy in excess of £100 million a year. That is more than £100 million earned by your constituents that is effectively being handed to trade unions.
Stephen Doughty
Q 182 Sorry, how can you justify that? Can you explain that?
Jonathan Isaby: How can I justify that figure?
Stephen Doughty
Q 183 Yes. Can you break it down?
Jonathan Isaby: In the report that we published in 2013 or 2014, our most recent figures were that there were direct grants of about £23 million to trade unions from Government Departments and other public sector bodies and facility time was time worth at least £85 million a year, which is an underestimate, because a lot of public sector bodies are not properly recording facility time. There are some very good measures in the Bill that will crack down on that.
Stephen Doughty
Q 184 Would you accept that the unions pay the public sector money for the provision of check-off, for example? There is money going in the opposite direction.
Jonathan Isaby: Well, that is another issue in the Bill. Only 22% of the public bodies that offer check-off are charging for that service, so, again, millions of pounds are being lost every year, which is basically a taxpayer subsidy to the unions through the provision of that kind of service. That is before we get into office space, telephone lines and other things that are not covered in the Bill but that I hope the Government will look at adding to it. Perhaps the Committee would like to add those things to the Bill because that is another subsidy that is totally unjustifiable in our view.
Stephen Doughty
Q 185 So you are not willing to tell us how many people have lobbied you on this or where your money comes from, but you are willing to come here and make statements about what should happen to other civil society organisations. That is the nub of it.
Jonathan Isaby: There are hundreds or thousands of campaign groups and campaigning charities that will appear before such Committees and are not subject to intruding on the privacy of those who support them.
Stephen Doughty
Q 186 But others should be.
Jonathan Isaby: If they are in receipt of taxpayers’ money, yes. That certainly goes for—
Stephen Doughty
Q 187 In all aspects of their work, not in proportion to that funding or at any other level?
Jonathan Isaby: When millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being handed to an organisation, whether it is a trade union or, indeed, a charity—a lot of charities are in receipt of huge amounts of taxpayers’ money—there needs to be a very high standard of transparency to justify to taxpayers where that money is going.
The Chair
Before we leave this subject, Mr Isaby, you made a lot of claims there about large amounts of money—£100 million and £85 million. Would you be able to write to Committee members outlining where those funds come from, because they have been a source of information that I think would—
Jonathan Isaby: The grants to the unions and so on?
The Chair
You claimed that the figure is £100 million and £85 million—
Jonathan Isaby: It is in the written evidence that I have already provided to the Committee.
The Chair
Will you elaborate on that in writing and send it to all Committee members on both sides, so that they might further digest your claims?
Jonathan Isaby: I will happily do so. It was in our report last year and it is in the evidence that I submitted to you, but I will happily do that.
John Howell
Q 188 I have a question for Mr Wilson. Can you describe the strike that your company faced? What was its effect on the travelling public and what are the likely effects of the thresholds?
Tony Wilson: The most recent strike was in relation to Unite’s quest for sector-wide collective bargaining across London. They obviously had to try to co-ordinate many legal entities. They managed to do that and we had a very low turnout in terms of our own workforce actually voting yes for the strike. It was even lower among union members as a proportion of the number of employees.
We were quite successful in the marketplace in terms of operating services. On the first day of operation, we got between 30% and 40% of the service out, but that is the peak-time service, which is what is mostly going to affect commuters both in the morning and afternoon. On the second day, 5 February, we got up to nearly 50% of our peak-time service out on the road. In any respect, that is a major disruption to the travelling public and it was not a great day for anybody who was trying to catch a bus. We were one of the most successful companies in terms of turning out services. Others varied at certain depots around London from zero to all the way up to similar levels to us. As a proportion of the total network, however, it was less than 50% out, certainly on the second day, which was the better of the two.
John Howell
Q 189 And the effect of the thresholds in the Bill?
Tony Wilson: To me, the thresholds are all about proportionality. We rely entirely on collective bargaining within our organisation. We have a very good relationship with Unite. Across many years, I have never had any great issue with them. For us, it is the fact that very low numbers of the organisation can dictate to the mass. Some of that is to do with the fact that our particular company has quite a low percentage of union members in the first place, but even they do not all go and vote. I think something like 12% of the total bus driver workforce actually voted yes and dictated to the vast majority.
I heard something earlier on about picket lines. On 13 January, there was no police presence on our picket lines, but there were a lot of people, and a lot of staff who would otherwise have come to work were deterred from doing so. Most pickets were not particularly antagonistic—some were a bit different—but the sheer number of people that they had to pass to get into work was a barrier to them. At one depot, the roadway was blocked, so we could not actually get buses in and out. On the second day, co-ordinating with Transport for London, we had a large police presence on all of our sites. It was far more organised and there was a lot less disruption. It was noticeable that people do not want to come to work and cross that barrier. Whether on the day or the stigma afterwards, they do not feel comfortable.
Chris Stephens
Q 190 This is a question to the TaxPayers Alliance. I know from my previous employment that your organisation is well-versed in freedom of information. In relation to facility time, what do you consider to be a trade union duty and what do you consider to be a trade union activity? When you have done research into facility time, have you been able to establish how many trade union activists have had either part or all of their salary paid by a trade union?
In terms of check-off, why is it correct that public sector employees—even those who would be in a staff association—can pay council tax, rent and charitable donations via check-off, but not a trade union?
My last question goes back to the taxpayers and the democratic mandate. If a political party has been elected in a devolved Administration or a public authority and it has a democratic mandate to carry out good industrial relations by providing check-off, either charitable or free, or good facility time, who is anybody to interfere in that? Surely, it has the democratic mandate and the taxpayer has made that decision.
Jonathan Isaby: There are quite a few points there. You talked about the difference between activities and duties. Those things are defined, are they not? ACAS has defined them and our most recent report quotes exactly what they are.
Chris Stephens
Q 191 Have you specifically asked employers what duties and activities are in a major freedom of information request?
Jonathan Isaby: No. I am not sure of the wording of the exact request that we put in, but the difference is that employees can take paid time off for duties, while the time off for activities is unpaid. What we are concerned about is the paid time off when it is taxpayer-funded time that is being used.
Obviously, in that respect, we are talking here about duties rather than activities, although this comes back to the point that we uncovered. I think I am right in saying that it was 344 public sector bodies, of which 154 were local authorities, 122 were NHS trusts and 37 were quangos, that either did not record facility time or only recorded it partially. That comes back to the whole issue that this Bill is seeking to address: it is unclear how much additional subsidy unions are getting and whether time is being spent on activities rather than duties, which is absolutely not what the current law envisages. That is why it is right that the law should be seeking to better define this.
Chris Stephens
Q 192 But you are making an allegation—I want to be clear about your answer—that in the public sector what is being allowed to happen is that activities that should be unpaid are being paid. Is that what you are alleging?
Jonathan Isaby: We do not know. The fact that so many bodies—literally hundreds of public sector bodies—are not properly recording this means that we have no idea. They are not recording it. Therefore, I think the Bill is absolutely right to be saying that this should be recorded properly, so that there can be proper accountability and knowledge that there is absolutely no abuse going on.
Chris Stephens
Q 193 So have you established that the trade unions make a contribution to employees on facility time?
Jonathan Isaby: Obviously, trade unions have people that they employ and they are not solely funded by the taxpayer, but there is clearly a big subsidy here.
Chris Stephens
Q 194 Trade unions give money to public sector employers for some trade union activists who are on facility time, usually in cases of full-time facility time. You have not been able to establish that?
Jonathan Isaby: I do not know off the top of my head the extent of that; I do not know is the honest, quick answer.
The Chair
Mr Isaby, in the context of the request that I made for Committee members, when you submit material could you also submit a paragraph or two on your view on that and how you arrive at those estimates or projections? If you can do that, it would be helpful to members of the Committee.
Jonathan Isaby: Yes, happily.
Chris Stephens
Q 195 I asked questions that I do not think I have got an answer to, in terms of check-off, and obviously the taxpayer and who represents the taxpayer in the democratic mandate.
Jonathan Isaby: If there was a check-off, I simply do not think that it is for the public sector—that is, a taxpayer-funded employer—to organise its employees’ memberships of any organisation, whether that be a trade union, a political party, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or whatever it might be. It is a private decision that people need to make. With direct debits and banking these days really making these things very easy for individuals to handle, there is no justification for that to be done by the employer.
Chris Stephens
Q 196 Surely, it is a contractual obligation. Have you established that in many public sector bodies there is a contractual obligation between the employee and the employer to have a check-off?
Jonathan Isaby: I simply do not accept that there should be. It is not the role of the public sector—whether it be a Government Department or a local council—to organise those things.
Chris Stephens
Q 197 That might be your view, but surely if a public body that is democratically elected has decided to put that in individual employees’ contracts, who are we to argue with that?
Jonathan Isaby: I think you are to disagree because you are the Parliament of this country, and if you change the law and say that you can no longer do that, then that will stand, surely?
Rishi Sunak
Q 198 Mr Wilson, I have a question for you. One of the things that the Bill will do is to put in place a four-month ballot mandate for industrial action. I think we have heard earlier today that industrial action has been called on ballots that were two years previous, so there ought to be a meaningful change. I would be interested to know how that would impact your business, and how you think about your population of employees and how that changes over the time, and whether this would be a helpful or sensible measure.
Tony Wilson: I think it is a very appropriate measure. Going back to the incident of the strike in January and February, the ballot for that was prior to Christmas, in December 2014. We are still not out of the woods on that. The action has not been called off; it is not over. There have been numerous discussions in the intervening period. We have a turnover rate of 14% or 15% per annum in our bus driver workforce, so by now, the workforce is very different to the one that actually balloted. Clearly, there could be other people who would come in and vote in the same direction, but it is not right to say that the same populace that voted the first time is there today; it simply is not.
I think it is appropriate that ballots run out of time. Purely from a fairness to proportionality perspective, to have a refreshed vote with a new look by the people who are in employment at the time and are now going to be affected by it seems perfectly appropriate to me. I do not think the unions themselves—I do not think Unite would see that as a particular barrier. I think they recognise that even if the legislation changes in the way set out, they will just have to try a bit harder to mobilise their workforce, and they are very effective at that. I do not know that in practice, things will actually change too much. I think they will get more people voting, personally, and we will have a slightly different scenery.
Julie Elliott
Q 199 In your answer to a previous question from a colleague on the Committee, you made great play of the collection of information. Would you accept that for the local authorities or other public bodies that do not do that, there will be a cost to the taxpayer from collecting that information?
Jonathan Isaby: In terms of the amount of time?
Julie Elliott
Q 200 It is a straightforward yes or no answer.
Jonathan Isaby: Clearly.
Julie Elliott
Q 201 Thank you. In your figures, which you quoted earlier, what percentage of trade union income are you implying comes from the taxpayer?
Jonathan Isaby: I do not know the total trade union income across the UK, so I cannot tell you what that is as a percentage.
Julie Elliott
Q 202 Well, it is very publicly available. It is the most transparent money in politics and campaigning, so I would have thought you would have looked up what percentage it is.
Jonathan Isaby: I do not know off the top of my head what that number is, but I do know that £108 million-plus a year is a large chunk of taxpayers’ money.
Julie Elliott
Q 203 So you are making a lot of assumptions despite not knowing all the facts. What grants were you referring to that trade unions get?
Jonathan Isaby: As I said to Sir Alan, I will happily give you the specifics on that. In terms of direct payments to trade unions, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills gave the TUC £20 million in 2012-13.
Julie Elliott
Q 204 Can I just interrupt? You specifically said that trade unions receive grants. I am not aware of any grants that trade unions receive. I think you will find the BIS figure is to do with the contracts that were won regarding trade union learning, which was something that lots of organisations applied for and deliver a service for. What grants do trade unions gain from the Government or the taxpayer? I am a taxpayer, as are many trade union members.
Jonathan Isaby: I presume they all are. We are all taxpayers. They are amounts of money that have been given to trade unions—
Julie Elliott
Q 205 Yes, but you specifically referred to grants. Are you aware of any grants that trade unions receive or did you use the wrong word?
Jonathan Isaby: I do not know how you want to define the word “grant”, but I am talking about amounts of money that are handed directly to trade unions from public sector bodies, quangos, local authorities and Government Departments.
Julie Elliott
Q 206 Can I take from that that you are not aware of any grants that trade unions actually receive? A grant is something applied for and given. Are you aware of any grants that trade unions receive from the taxpayer?
Jonathan Isaby: Any grant given to a body would have to be something where you have to account for how it is spent, so it is a grant in that sense.
Julie Elliott
Q 207 But are you aware of any grants?
Jonathan Isaby: It depends whether we are disagreeing about the definition of “grant”. I am talking about money being given to trade unions from these bodies.
Julie Elliott
Q 208 So you are not referring to grants. Can we move on to your big bugbear of the afternoon, which is facility time? You seem to have a real problem with that. Would you accept that any agreements on facility time are made directly between employers or their representatives and employees or their representatives?
Jonathan Isaby: Yes.
Julie Elliott
Q 209 That is therefore working in both people’s interests. The employer, whether it be public sector or anyone else, and the employee or their representative body, the trade union, are happy and come to that agreement freely, without anyone putting pressure on them to do so. They want to make that agreement because they think it works in both people’s interests.
Jonathan Isaby: It may well work in both people’s interests, but at what cost? An important point to raise—
Julie Elliott
Q 210 No, I am asking whether you would agree that that is the situation.
Jonathan Isaby: Clearly it is agreed by both sides, but I should point out that the amount spent in the public sector on facility time is three and a half times the amount in the private sector. There is clearly an imbalance there. We have always said that we should be seeking to get the amount spent by the public sector in the same proportion as it is in the private sector.
Julie Elliott
Well, all I can say is that my anecdotal evidence—actually, most of what you are talking about is anecdotal evidence—as a trade union official for 12 years is that there are as many people on full-time or partial release in the private sector as there are in the public sector. That is my experience. I cannot back it up with factual information, but you cannot back up what you are saying with factual information.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
I am sorry, but we have now had three separate sessions where Opposition Members have asked about 17 questions in a row. We have had a grave imbalance in the questioning. The Committee is meant to be impartial in its questioning and evenly balanced between Government and Opposition. I have not taken any of the Committee’s time to ask questions in this entire sitting, nor do I intend to, but I do intend to insist that there is a balance between Government and Opposition.
The Chair
May I say to the Minister that if he goes back in the report of this sitting, he will see that I switch from speaker to speaker and side to side, and that I only switch to the other side when a Member stops asking questions? It is not a question of the Opposition getting too much time. They are asking the questions, and your side, Minister, are not asking questions in the same numbers. I do, however, admit that it is time on this particular portion. Mr Isaby has promised to put forward all the information to members of the Committee in written form. We have dealt with how much we can deal with today. We still have two or three Members to call. I call Mr Cartlidge.
James Cartlidge
Q 211 Thank you, Sir Alan. The key thing for me, Mr Wilson, is that you are clearly at the coalface of all this. You have experienced what it is like running a firm with major industrial issues and disputes. I am interested to hear you talk about having harmonious relations with Unite. In your opinion, will the key measures in the Bill in any way worsen or be likely to worsen industrial relations at your firm?
Tony Wilson: I do not think so. I have had discussions with our regional officer about before and after and what will make the difference. I think what I said about them just trying harder is absolutely true. What I have noticed over my years—many, many years now—is that it is the incidents of postal ballot that have gone up, and not necessarily the strike action. That is where we have faced more threat, in the softest terms. There is more likelihood that the workforce will go to the postal ballot. They will not necessarily go to strike action.
The only two strikes that we have faced in the London bus market have been over the Olympics and the sector-wide collective bargaining. If our business had voted on its own, there would not have been strike action on either of those issues in reality. I do not think our harmonious relationship will be affected by the Bill; we will just have a fairer process for the workforce at large in reality.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 212 I have a question for Mr Isaby. Basically, are you aware that large private sector companies use check-off quite regularly?
Jonathan Isaby: Yes, of course, but that is their affair. They are private companies, so it is not taxpayers’ money.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 213 Are you aware that companies such as Tata and other large industrial companies use it?
Jonathan Isaby: Yes.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 214 Mr Wilson’s company, Abellio, is a private-sector company that provides a public service. Would it be counted under your logic as liable or able to use check-off?
Jonathan Isaby: I think it is a very interesting area, which TPA is keen to look at. You have private-sector bodies delivering using taxpayers’ money. This gets into the realms of freedom of information. Organisations that are spending taxpayers’ money should be subject to similar rules and standards as in the public sector.
Tom Blenkinsop
Q 215 A final question, just so that the Government Whip does not get too irate. Mr Wilson—Mr Isaby, you can give your response as well—commercially, would you prefer to deal with one central voice that represents a collective bargaining unit or undergo individual consultation with every single employee?
The Chair
Order. Just before we finish, Mr Argar, you can ask a quick question, which can be replied to in writing, but please keep it brief.
Edward Argar
Q 216 That is what I was going to offer with your permission, Sir Alan. The question is to Mr Wilson. You touched on the 2014 dispute and ballot with Unite. Can you remind us what percentage of Unite members voted to significantly disrupt the working and daily lives of huge numbers of Londoners? I am happy for you to write if you do not have this to hand. Do you have any estimate of how many Londoners’ and others’ journeys were affected by that action over those two days?
Tony Wilson: For the second point, I would ask Transport for London, because it will give you the answer across the whole network, not just for our organisation.
Edward Argar
I was thinking about your firm’s services in particular.
Tony Wilson: I do not know. We are 7% of the market—
The Chair
Order. I am bringing this session to a conclusion now. For the last two questions, I would be grateful if you could submit written answers if you wish. Also, Mr Isaby, you could put together your paper of queries and forward that on to the Clerks or the Members directly. We will now suspend the sitting for five minutes to get the video link ready. Thank you very much, Mr Isaby and Mr Wilson. We are grateful for your attendance today.
The Chair
Q 217 We now hear oral evidence from the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Scottish TUC via video link. For this session we have until 5 o’clock. Of course, Members know that we are at the mercy of technology. I warn Members that, not only in the House of Commons but everywhere, technology often fails, so if it does please bear with us—we will figure a way out. I aim to start with Cardiff and suggest that we divide the time equally between the witnesses. Do we have contact with the Welsh Minister?
Leighton Andrews: Good afternoon, Sir Alan.
The Chair
Q 218 Will you introduce yourself for the record?
Leighton Andrews: I am Leighton Andrews, the Minister for Public Services.
Stephen Doughty
Q 219 Leighton, it is Stephen Doughty, speaking for the Opposition. Croeso. I have here the 9 September statement from the Welsh Government in the name of the First Minister, which very clearly states that the Welsh Government believe
“that significant elements of the Bill relate specifically to public services which in Wales are unambiguously devolved responsibilities. I therefore do not accept the suggestion that the Bill must be regarded as concerned exclusively with non-devolved issues.”
It seems very obvious to me where this sits in relation to health, education of under-17s, fire and a number of other potential areas. You have a range of concerns, so will you elaborate on where you feel the Bill breaches the devolution settlement? Given the First Minister’s statement, will you outline what consultation was undertaken between UK Government Ministers and Welsh Government Ministers?
Leighton Andrews: Well, I suppose our starting point would be, what problem is the Bill seeking to solve? We believe that the Bill contrasts sharply with the constructive social partnerships brokered in Wales. We have good relationships with the trade unions. We value our workforce and believe that they contribute proactively to the development of strong public services.
The First Minister communicated with the Minister in charge of the Bill in Westminster via letter on, I think, the day the Bill was published. The First Minister subsequently wrote a long, detailed letter to the Prime Minister outlining our concerns, as a Government, with the Bill. Those concerns, as you rightly say, reflect the fact that the Bill addresses devolved public services—health, the fire service, education under 17 and potentially other areas, such as some transport staff. Clearly, under the devolution settlement, it is for us to make policy in respect of education under 17, health, fire and rescue, and so on.
The First Minister’s letter to the Prime Minister also raised a fundamental constitutional issue in respect of our right to defend legitimate devolved interests. He said in that letter that we have great concerns that the nature of the Bill would cut across the devolution settlement, which is of great concern to us. We recently received a short reply from the Prime Minister, but we do not regard it as dealing with the key issues that we set out.
Stephen Doughty
Q 220 Have you had specific replies on the issues—particularly check-off—that have been raised as concerns?
Leighton Andrews: UK Government Ministers have not yet written to the Welsh Government about proposals on check-off. We know, of course, that the UK Government made a statement in August, subsequent to the introduction of the Bill, that they are planning to take forward proposals on check-off. They are of great concern to public service employers as well as trade unions in Wales. Indeed, those issues were discussed at our workforce partnership council only last Thursday. Public service employers in local government, the health service and, indeed, the further education sector expressed their discontent with the Bill. As I say, we have not formally heard from the UK Government in respect of check-off yet.
Stephen Doughty
Q 221 Lastly, the UK Government clearly have form on this. You will recall, of course, the case that was before the Supreme Court regarding the Agricultural Wages Board. What is the Welsh Government’s wider experience of the UK Government’s legislating on matters that are devolved and have been found to be so by the courts?
Leighton Andrews: Well, I think you raise an important issue. Obviously, the judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill confirmed that, provided an Assembly Bill fairly or realistically satisfies the tests set out in section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, it does not matter whether it might also be capable of being classified as relating to a subject that has not been devolved, such as employment rights and industrial relations.
The policy background of the explanatory notes to the Bill sets the context of the Bill in respect of essential public services. That, of course, takes us into public services that are devolved, such as the ones we have discussed. There is a clear divergence in approach to delivering public services between England and Wales, and we think the proposals in the Bill, far from protecting public services, will be more likely to provoke confrontation.
We also find it somewhat odd that a UK Government Bill of this kind seeks to specify, for example, how much union facility time employees have saved local authorities in Wales. We have been going through, for example, a local government reform programme, which might not be supported by trade unions in local government. Their access to facility time will be a very important element for us in ensuring harmonious relations with the workforce as our reform programme goes ahead.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Q 222 I hope you can hear me okay. We took evidence earlier from Mr Wilson, who operates more than 700 buses. He stated that on a ballot turnout of 12%, two days’ industrial action was called. The 12% of people requesting industrial action may no longer be involved in his company now, because the decision was taken much earlier in the year. You spoke about schools earlier, and we also discussed the fact that on a 25% turnout in 2011, 62% of England’s schools were closed. I wonder what you think is a decent turnout for a ballot, considering that we are talking about accountability and transparency, and about making sure that the voice of every individual who is a member of a union is heard.
Leighton Andrews: I am sorry if you have had problems with strike action in England’s schools, of course, but let me say that in Wales we have been very successful in reaching agreements with trades unions that have avoided the need for strike action. For example, in respect of the firefighters’ dispute over pensions, we reached a solution and the Fire Brigades Union put off strike action in Wales. In respect of junior doctors, the British Medical Association’s advice has confirmed that the ballot for industrial action will not be taken in Wales. In respect of the agenda for change in the health service, the inclusive approach that we adopted led to the acceptance and successful application of a two-year pay deal in Wales, avoiding the threat of industrial action. In respect of education, we had constructive discussions with the trades unions and avoided the rolling strike action that was due to take place in Wales in 2013, while strike action was taking place in England.
So I suppose I go back to my opening comment: what is the problem that the Bill is seeking to address? The reality as far as we can see is that we have good relationships with trades unions in Wales and with our workforce. We have good relationships with public service employers in Wales and with our workforce. Public service employers in Wales do not support the Bill and do not see the need for it.
The Chair
Minister, before you go on any more, there are still three Members seeking to ask questions. I would ask you to be a bit more succinct. After this next question, I may see whether I can take all those three questions together, which might help you be as succinct as possible.
Nusrat Ghani
Q 223 One of the points that Mr Wilson raised about the 12% ballot calling for industrial action where he worked was that other members who wished to come into work felt intimidated. You talk about good industrial relations, which is what we all want to see, but there is also a feeling that when a minority of people has asked for industrial action, that has put pressure on other employees in a workplace who could not go into work that day or who felt intimidated. That is one point that Mr Wilson raised. I will go back to my original question: do you think that a turnout of 12% or even of 25% is representative of all the workers in a workplace?
Leighton Andrews: Well, I think that you would want the maximum turnout that you can achieve. I do not know Mr Wilson or the circumstances of that dispute. The point I am seeking to make here is that we are dealing with a matter that we regard as a fundamental constitutional question. This Bill seeks to impose conditions on Wales in public services that are devolved, where we have a responsibility to deliver public services. There is a major constitutional question at stake here. This is not a matter that we feel is going to improve industrial relations in Wales. It is not going to improve industrial relations within our public services; nor do we believe, at the outset, that there is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Q 224 In response to Stephen Doughty’s previous question about the Welsh Government’s previous challenges to things like the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, can I ask you—without expecting you to reveal the content—to confirm whether you have sought advice from the Counsel General about the Trade Union Bill and its potential breach of the devolution settlement?
Victoria Prentis
Q 225 My question ties in quite well. It was held by the court that the agricultural wages case concerned agriculture. There is no way that this Bill could possibly be concerned with anything other than employment and industrial relations. It was argued that the agricultural wages case concerned wages but it clearly did not: the court held that it concerned agriculture. This is quite different, is it not?
Jo Stevens
Q 226 Have you had any discussions with your counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland about the measures in the Bill and their application?
Leighton Andrews: I start by saying that I am not in front of this Committee to divulge any conversations that have been held with our own legal advisers in respect of our position as a Government. We will reach our own conclusion as to whether this Bill from the UK Government requires a legislative consent motion. That is something we are currently considering.
In respect of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, I think we need to be clear about that Bill. It went beyond what was said by the questioner. What it confirmed in that case was that where an Assembly Bill fairly and realistically satisfies the test set out in section 108 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and is not within an exception, it does not matter whether it might also be capable of being classified as relating to a subject that has not been devolved, such as employment rights and industrial relations. The Trade Union Bill very clearly relates to devolved public services—that is the three obvious ones: fire and rescue, health and, of course, education under 17, but potentially others as well. This clearly cuts across the devolution settlement, and we have very strong issues that we will be raising in that regard.
In respect of relations with Scotland and Northern Ireland, officials certainly have had contact with Scottish Government officials. The legal situation in Northern Ireland is slightly different from that in respect of Scotland and Wales, but I think that there is considerable unease among the devolved Administrations about this Bill.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your time, Minister. You are obviously a very busy man. We will now move on from you to the Scottish Minister.
Examination of Witnesses
Roseanna Cunningham and Grahame Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
We are very grateful to you for coming online for this session of the Committee. Would you like to introduce yourself and state your position for the record?
Roseanna Cunningham: I am Roseanna Cunningham, MSP. I am the Cabinet Secretary for Fair Work, Skills and Training.
The Chair
What we are going to do is introduce Members to ask questions and then you will reply to those questions with your answers. [Interruption.] Thank you very much indeed, Minister, for staying with us. Technology, at times, is a bugger. I know that that will go on record, anyway. What we are going to do is to put questions to you from Members, and then hopefully you will give us the answers and we will hear them.
Stephen Doughty
Q 227 Fantastic. I will ask you a similar question to the one I have just asked the Welsh Government Minister. Given the quite clear constitutional implications of the Bill cutting across the devolution settlement in terms of issues and services that are provided by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and others, what consultation did the UK Government have with you about the Bill, and what consultation have they had with you during the process? I know that concerns have been raised.
Roseanna Cunningham: I am not aware of there being any formal consultation in advance of the introduction of the Bill. While I have had some correspondence backwards and forwards with the relevant Minister, there has not really been much in the way of a discussion and we are still trying to establish exactly how it would impact on us. We share a lot of the concerns that the Welsh Minister expressed to you.
Stephen Doughty
Q 228 I do not expect you to share the detail of this, but have you taken legal advice from your own counsels and legal advice team on the implications of the Bill?
Roseanna Cunningham: We are looking at that, because we feel that it ought to require an LCM—sorry, a legislative consent motion—given the extent of the interference in what are clearly devolved policy areas. We are looking closely at that, and, yes, it will involve taking some legal advice, but I am obviously not going to share it.
James Cartlidge
Q 229 On the constitutional point, given that industrial relations are reserved—they are a UK matter—is it not the case that any industrial legislation that comes out from any Government of any type and that potentially affects public services will have ramifications for devolved areas?
Roseanna Cunningham: You are reaching right into the operations of our Government and, in fact, into a significant policy area for us as well. You will have heard the title of my job, which is fair work, skills and training, and that ought to tell you something about the approach that we are trying to take in Scotland, throughout the work that we do. It principally means the way in which we behave as a devolved Administration in terms of our own employment, our relationships with our employees and the way in which we conduct our business. This is now directly reaching into, and attempting to change, the way in which we conduct our business.
James Cartlidge
Q 230 But with respect, Mr Doughty raised a constitutional point and I am simply asking whether you accept that industrial relations is a reserved matter? [Interruption.]
The Chair
Thank you for bearing with us, Minister.
Roseanna Cunningham: I think that I probably said what I wanted to say.
James Cartlidge
Q 231 I had better ask the question again. Do you accept that industrial relations—trade unions matters—are reserved for the United Kingdom Government?
Roseanna Cunningham: They are currently reserved, but we consider that the effect of this is such that it should require an LCM and we are taking advice on that.
James Cartlidge
Q 232 Okay, but the impact is on public services such as schools, which have been devolved. We accept that. But do you not have a concern, therefore, in relation to schools? Admittedly the statistics I have are for England and I am sorry about that, but we have had school closures in England on ballots with relatively small turnouts, such as 25%. Would that be of concern to you?
Roseanna Cunningham: I cannot speak to the industrial relations record that exists in England. I can speak only to the industrial relations record that exists in Scotland, and that is not happening in Scotland. In fact, we have a better industrial relations record here than in any other part of the United Kingdom, with the lowest number of days lost to industrial disputes. I would argue that that is the way we conduct our business here, and have done since 2007. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. What we are concerned about is the negative impact that this Bill will have on relationships in Scotland, in an area where we are making a far better impact than there appears to be south of the border.
Chris Stephens
Can you hear me, Minister?
Roseanna Cunningham: Yes I can. I cannot see you, but I can hear you.
Chris Stephens
Is Mr Smith there, too, from the STUC?
Roseanna Cunningham: He is sitting beside me.
Chris Stephens
Q 233 I will ask you a question first from the STUC point of view. Can you outline for the Committee what discussions the STUC has had with the Scotland Office on the Trade Union Bill? Do you have specific concerns in relation to check-off and facility time?
Grahame Smith: Perhaps I should introduce myself, given that Members may not know who I am. I am the general secretary of the Scottish TUC. I have had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State at the Scotland Office to discuss a variety of things, among which was the Trade Union Bill.
Victoria Prentis
Q 234 Presumably, you do not think that industrial relations should be an English, Welsh and Scottish issue. You think they should be devolved.
Roseanna Cunningham: Yes, I do think they should be devolved. I would offer as evidence the different industrial relations picture here from what is happening south of the border.
Victoria Prentis
Q 235 And there was a great deal of discussion about this before the devolution settlement, was there not, and Smith came down in favour of them not being devolved?
Roseanna Cunningham: That does not change my position though. My position is that in an ideal world, they would be devolved. One reason why I am arguing for that is because, quite apart from anything else, there is a different relationship in Scotland. To have our relationship adversely affected by what is going through the Westminster Parliament is unfortunate to say the least.
Victoria Prentis
Q 236 But the fact is that they are not a devolved issue.
Roseanna Cunningham: The fact is that you are choosing not to listen to what I have to say about the different relationship within Scotland, in terms of industrial relations, and why, in our view, it would be preferable if this Bill simply did not apply to Scotland.
The Chair
Thank you very much for sticking with us through this very tumultuous experience.
Dr Cameron
Q 237 Can I ask the STUC—I hope you can hear me—about your views on whether or not industrial relations should be a devolved matter?
Grahame Smith: The position of the Scottish TUC on industrial relations and the major employment protections is that they should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We believe that that would fulfil the pledge that was given in the so-called extensive devolution agreement, or devolution settlement. Given the major powers to be devolved to Scotland under the Smith commission proposals, including powers over employability, various tax powers and other powers that impact on economic development, it would make sense, in our view, to have powers on employment protection to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament to give us that meaningful and clear devolution settlement. Our concerns about the Bill are about its impact on workers and trade union members across the whole of Britain. The members of our Scottish Trades Union Congress represent members across Britain and are concerned about the impact that this Bill and its proposals will have on all the members of our affiliated trade unions.
Dr Cameron
Q 238 Do you have any particular concerns regarding check-off?
Grahame Smith: We are concerned about the Bill in its entirety. First, we are concerned about the lack of scrutiny by Parliament over the arrangements for check-off. It seems to me unacceptable and, in fact, pretty dangerous and damaging that Ministers in Westminster can, for example, determine whether check-off arrangements apply to public services in Scotland. In many respects these are contractual matters that are agreed between unions and employers in the public services in Scotland.
Check-off and facility time arrangements are an investment made by public service employers in stable and effective industrial relations. They contribute towards the provision of quality public services and stable relations between employers and unions. Any proposal to remove check-off arrangements or reduce the amount of facility time—that is, time that workplace reps can spend representing their members, working constructively with public service employers to address the range of challenges faced by public service employers and workers in Scotland—seems to me to be not only wrong-headed but, as I said earlier, particularly damaging and against the spirit not only of devolution in Scotland and Wales but decentralisation in England. To require local authorities to abandon check-off arrangements is certainly not consistent with the devolution of power to a local level to allow local authorities to be responsive to the needs of their local communities, including their local workforces.
Rishi Sunak
Q 239 Thank you both for your time. You spoke earlier about the good state of industrial relations in Scotland. With that backdrop, if a national strike in Scotland was called with only 20% turnout and a ballot that was two years out of date, would you consider that fair to the ordinary families up and down the country trying to get their kids to school or to get to work?
Roseanna Cunningham: Who is that question to?
Rishi Sunak
To both of you.
Roseanna Cunningham: The point I am making is that the situation in Scotland is such that I would be pretty close to being able to say that we would not allow it to get to that position in the first place. Reaching that position would be a catastrophic failure. We should be ensuring through all the practices—including things such as check-off and facility time—that the proper time is afforded to ensure that the relationship between employer and employee and trade union works effectively so that you do not get into that position.
Grahame Smith: The proposals for facility time and check-off raise the possibility of unfortunate conflict and disagreement in our public services. I would simply point to the statement that was made by the Conservative councillor who is the HR spokesperson for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He said that he was opposed to the proposals on check-off and facility time for public services, including local authorities. He said that the current arrangements work well for the employer and the trade unions and that
“the costs…are already covered by direct contributions from the trade unions”.
On whether industrial action is legitimate, if a ballot is a measure of legitimacy, I suggest that a number of councillors and Members of the European Parliament would not pass that legitimacy test. On whether a ballot indicates a significant level of support, unions take into account not only the outcome of the ballot, including the majority or the turnout, but union workplace reps know the views of their local members and the feeling of the workforce. A union would not call a strike if it was not confident of the support of the workforce.
On disruption in public services, when I talk to our members, not only are there those who work in public services, but our members are users of public services. Their concerns about the problems in public services are not about strike action. There are very few strikes in public services across the UK and very few in Scotland. They are concerned about underfunding and the lack of investment in staff and staff training, and about the impact of austerity and the pressure that that has on staff who deliver quality public services. That is much more of an issue that needs to be addressed rather than the proposals in the Bill that, frankly, have no evidence base and are questionable in terms of their democratic legitimacy.
Ian Mearns
Q 240 I wonder whether I could also pose the question about check-off and facility time to the Minister. Do you expect the Government’s proposals to apply to the public sector in Scotland? Do you believe that there are any mutually beneficial elements coming from check-off and facility time for both employees and employers in the public sector in Scotland?
Roseanna Cunningham: We value both. We consider that the investment in facility time pays you back in terms of the handling of issues and problems before they get to become major disputes. That is an extremely important aspect of the relationship that we have within the public sector in Scotland. On check-off, we can understand what the problem—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. Did you conclude your answer?
Roseanna Cunningham: Pretty much. There was a phrase at the end that I suspect you did not hear, but I am fairly sure that the members of your Committee understand the position that we are taking on both check-off and facility time. We do not see the need for—
Stephen Doughty
Q 241 I have one last question for the Minister. Looking at clause 9, the provisions on picketing have implications for police officers and police involvement in picketing. Policing is another area that is wholly devolved to Scotland. What conversations have you had with your ministerial colleagues and representatives of the police in Scotland about the provisions, including whether they put the police in an invidious position regarding involvement in industrial disputes?
Roseanna Cunningham: I certainly think that this is a situation that the police do not want to find themselves in. I have had some brief conversations with relevant colleagues. One of our difficulties is with the way that the Bill is drafted. So much is so uncertain at this point that we are almost having to wait and see until regulations appear to discover the practical outcomes of some of what is being vaguely suggested. We have some concern that what is being proposed will be simply exacerbate the situation, rather than help to calm it down. I cannot repeat often enough that if this is fixing a problem, I do not know where that problem is. It is certainly not a problem in Scotland.
The Chair
Minister and Mr Smith, we are very grateful to you for sticking with us through all the difficulties that we had today. It has been extremely useful and we will send you up a copy of all the minutes that we put together about this session. Thank you.
Roseanna Cunningham: Thank you.
Grahame Smith: Thank you.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Stephen Barclay.)
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 1 month 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
Child Suicide Bombers
(9 years, 1 month 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
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of use of children as suicide bombers.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, but it is sad, to say the least, that it is in a debate on such a tragic and difficult topic. I welcome the Minister. I am very aware that he has faced a personal family tragedy related to an act of terrorism that included a suicide bombing. I am indebted to him for his willingness to speak in the debate, and I very much look forward to his contribution.
Although, like most people, thankfully, I have not suffered in the same way as the Minister’s family, I have had some contact over the years with situations of conflict. Although those do not constitute a declarable interest, it is perhaps appropriate briefly to establish my own background and interest in the topic. I have worked at times in places that have suffered from serious conflict. At one stage in my career, I was briefly surrounded by heavily armed individuals in Aden in Yemen, fearing that I might be about to be kidnapped. Fortunately, the situation was resolved, but I still remember the feeling of fear and helplessness. I have tutored around eight undergraduate and postgraduate prisoners in the H-blocks of the Maze prison in Northern Ireland, including some found guilty of bombings. I have worked in places such as the Namibia-Angola border not long after a major conflict. Perhaps in part because of that background, I am now the chair of the all-party group on explosive weapons.
I have for many years been an observer of conflict. I am drawn to this debate because of my judgment that we have entered a new era that brings with it some horrendous developments, of which child suicide bombers is, for me, the most awful. Although the first recorded suicide bomber was a young Russian called Ignacy Hryniewiecki, who in 1881 blew himself up along with the Russian Tsar, suicide bombings were comparatively rare until very recently. During world war two, the Japanese military at times used suicide missions, but it was never a regular or major feature of large-scale armed conflicts. I believe that developments that now mean that some states wage war on terrorist groups with such advanced technological weaponry that it is no longer a case of facing armies or armed groups face to face are a contributory factor to the rise in suicide bombings. Thus, when cruise missiles or drones are used, those on the receiving end increasingly turn to new forms of conflict and new targets.
The 21st century has become the age of the suicide bomber, and suicide bombing is growing exponentially as a chosen form of combat. A recent report by Action on Armed Violence revealed that in 2014 there were no fewer than 3,463 civilian casualties from suicide bombings, but in the early months of 2015, the number was already around 5,000. I would like to acknowledge the work of Action on Armed Violence and of UNICEF, both of which are observing today’s debate, and I hope to do them some justice. The weekend death toll of the attack in Turkey, which appeared to target demonstrators for peace, is a further example of how devastating such attacks can be.
A study by the University of Chicago claims that 36 countries have suffered from suicide bombings, with more than 30,000 people killed over the past 30 years, including in the UK and, of course, in this city in particular. I must, too, acknowledge an attempted suicide bombing at Glasgow airport. The number of failed attempts worldwide is unknown, but even fails can often cause alarm and affect people’s way of life.
What and who are suicide bombers? They are highly effective, because the perpetrator functions as a sophisticated guidance system for the weapon. Whereas advanced states can use technological guidance systems, terrorist groups increasingly use human beings, either on foot or in vehicles. Suicide bombers therefore operate as part guided weapons system, part weapon. Often, these attacks happen far away from a traditional battlefield, if such a battlefield even exists, and strike at the heart of civilian life, including religious or ethnic groups and economic and cultural targets. Their impact is psychological as well as physical, causing fear and disruption to daily activity. Some of the most horrific attacks appear to have simply targeted as many civilians as possible in urban areas.
Suicide bombers have often been associated with extremist groups such as Daesh and Boko Haram, but the phenomenon is escalating beyond those notorious groups. Most academic studies of what motivates suicide bombers address adults, which is perhaps unsurprising given that children as suicide bombers is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Such studies that exist, such as those of those of Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago and Professor Scott Atran of France’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and the University of Michigan, can at times draw different conclusions, but they agree that overly simplistic views such as those of ex-President George Bush, who said that the suicide bomber
“hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises dissent”,
are, to quote Professor Atran,
“hopelessly tendentious and wilfully blind”.
Such comforting simplicity is no basis for understanding, let alone for constructing a policy. We need to understand much more about the motives and beliefs of adults before we can understand fully their motives for choosing to use children. One thing seems sure: addressing the problem by military means alone will do little to stop the spread of this horrendous practice.
The escalation in recent years of suicide bombings is happening along with the growth in using children as suicide bombers. The exploitation of children, treating them as mere dispensable tools of conflict, is a development that we do not fully understand. Such details as are becoming known confirm the need for everyone to refocus and do more to understand and address this trend. Examples of the growth in recent times of child suicide bombers are sadly not hard to find. It is claimed that some are as young as seven, although confirmation is often difficult. The youngest UK citizen to become a suicide bomber was 17-year-old Talha Asmal, who in June this year was involved in an attack in Iraq. It seems only a matter of time before even younger children among our own community become involved, unless we can find more effective preventive actions.
The scale of the problem worldwide is truly shocking. Take the case of Iraq. The Iraqi Independent Commission for Human Rights recently estimated that more than 1,000 children have been trained as suicide bombers in the six months up to May 2015. Think of it—1,000 children. In 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council found that Daesh was recruiting
“children into armed roles under the guise of education”
and that they were being
“deployed in active combat missions during military operations, including suicide bombing missions”.
In Nigeria since July 2014, the latest information shows that there have been nine suicide bombings involving children between the ages of seven and 17, all of whom were girls. Many of the attacks in Afghanistan are carried out by children. It is reported that some as young as nine have been intercepted. Often trained in Pakistani madrassahs, they are very susceptible to indoctrination. There are reports that in Afghanistan, child suicide bombers are sometimes given an amulet containing Koranic verses, which they are told will protect them from the explosion.
Given the current crisis in Syria, it is instructive to note that Daesh is increasingly using suicide bombings involving children. Indeed, hundreds of children are undergoing training as suicide bombers in camps in Syria and Iraq. Daesh calls these children, “Cubs of the Caliphate”. There are several reports of hundreds of children being kidnapped by Daesh and forced into their camps. In February, a Daesh video was released showing a training camp for children. Renate Winter, a member of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, claimed that many of the children being used as suicide bombers “are mentally challenged” and will have little or no idea of what is happening to them. It therefore seems probable that some of the young children being used are particularly susceptible to exploitation.
Furthermore, ongoing conflict in Syria and Nigeria is uprooting families and leading to many thousands of unaccompanied and separated children, who then become particularly vulnerable to terrorist groups. Put simply, it is comparatively easy to kidnap children under no one’s care. That is partly why I am particularly keen for the UK to welcome as many unaccompanied child refugees as possible.
However, it is, of course, not only via camps that children can be indoctrinated. The internet is well used by terrorists, radical clerics and others as a means of getting to young people and turning them. Indeed, there are as many channels for indoctrination as there are methods of training and education, yet it seems that the terrorists are ahead of the game in many respects. We need to know more and do more to protect children.
Wider concerns are now being expressed regarding child suicide bombers. UNICEF, for example, is concerned that the trend in child suicide bombers could lead to children increasingly being viewed as potential threats, placing many children at further risk. Furthermore, according to UNICEF, tens of thousands of children are receiving some form of psychological support as a result of the effects of conflict. People in psychological distress may be additionally vulnerable in many situations.
What is to be done? I have four matters to put to the Minster for reflection. First, we need to know much more about this phenomenon. Knowledge is a key requirement for effective action. Do the Government have any plans to increase funding for research in this area, and will they take a lead internationally in calling for and co-ordinating a much better resourced and focused investigation into the patterns and causes of suicide bombing involving children?
Secondly, will the Government take a lead in bringing together existing practice in providing education and psychological services aimed at counteracting the indoctrination of children?
Thirdly, will the Government at least consider putting together a taskforce, which may include cross-party membership as well as an appropriate range of professional experts, aimed at assessing the risks posed to young people in the UK and making recommendations to Government?
Finally, will the Government specifically aim to take in unaccompanied refugee children as part of their refugee relief programme?
As a new MP and one from Scotland, it would have been easy to avoid this difficult topic and to seek a debate on some domestic issue that was much less harrowing. Indeed, I know that some people may question whether this should be a political priority of mine; after all, I am not a spokesperson on either defence or foreign affairs. However, I am sure, that the Minister will fully agree at least about the importance of this topic.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate, Mr Evans, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) on securing it and on giving us chance to participate. As I said to you, Mr Evans, and to the shadow Minister and the Minister, I have another Committee to go to, so I apologise for having to leave early. That does not take away from the debate’s importance.
When we think about this matter, we are aware of the horror of what takes place, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has outlined. I hope that examples that he has given and others will explain the true horror that comes from using children as suicide bombers. Unfortunately, as terrible as this is, it is a daily reality for hundreds of vulnerable, impressionable children. Understanding why it happens is simple: children are easy targets—they are easily impressed—and the people using children for these horrific purposes have no capacity whatever to care about that.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) on securing this timely debate. The psychological welfare of young people has been mentioned, but how do we deal with the issue of children of Christian families in Syria being taken, with the threat of death to their families if the children do not carry out suicide bombings? I agree entirely that we need to address psychological welfare through education, but how do we deal with that situation?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend and colleague for that intervention. I wish I had the answer he wants, but I am not capable of giving it to him. As he knows, however, the persecution of Christians is an issue very close to my heart. In last night’s Adjournment debate, I made the point to the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox), who secured it, that 600,000 Christian Syrians have been displaced because of their belief. Many of them have been given the ultimatum “convert or die”, and when their children are kidnapped and used for these nefarious purposes, there is all the more reason to be concerned about the situation. This is a big issue and it needs to be tackled.
Like the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, I want to put on the record my sympathies for the people who lost their lives in Turkey over the weekend. They were involved in a peaceful protest. Nothing violent was ever supposed to happen, but they were cruelly murdered and injured. We need to put on the record our sympathies for all those who lost their lives.
I lived through the Troubles; I am old enough to remember them and to have participated in uniform as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, trying to thwart the activities of evil men and terrorists in Northern Ireland. I am also old enough to recall many of the people who died and the funerals I attended, all because of the evil activities of IRA terrorists. Again, perhaps those murders and bombings—indiscriminate bombings against innocent civilians, who were not involved in any way—give us just a wee insight into what happens.
The use of children in wars is nothing new; it is a tactic adopted by many in conflict. We can all conjure up the dreadful images of the child fighters used in Sierra Leone not so long ago, in other parts of Africa and in Burma, to name but a few. Again, children were used simply because they were children. Using them as suicide bombers is simply the next stage. It is a natural progression and means that a small child can be used to cause maximum devastation, while not sacrificing adult fighters who might be of more use elsewhere. That is what this is really all about: it is plainly and simply selfish. It has nothing to do with glory or anything else that fighters try to tell children. Let us not be under any illusion about that. The people who use children to fight or who strap bombs to their chest have absolutely no remorse. They do not care for or value human life; for them, there can be no consideration or distinction given for the innocence of a child.
In July this year, ISIS revealed the name of a young boy who had been responsible for the deaths of 50 Kurdish fighters in northern Syria. Omar Hadid al-Muhammadi was just 14 years of age. Most of us sitting here today have children far older than that. Think back, Mr Evans, just for a second, to when your own nieces or nephews were just 14. What were they doing? I suppose that, like my own sons, they were staying out a little later with their friends and spending a little less time with their father and mother and a little more time with girls—having girlfriends one week and being heartbroken the next. That is life; that is what happens. At 14, however, they were still easily influenced. They copied their friends and followed the crowd, as teenagers often do in an attempt to fit in, but that is simple stuff; that is all part of growing up.
Being forced to strap a bomb around your chest is not part of growing up—nor is being told, as young Abdul Samat was, that bombs will not kill you but will kill only Americans. Those are the lies that children are fed, and they are brainwashed to believe them. The saddest thing is that they are also brainwashed to believe that killing Americans or British servicemen is the will of Allah, of God, and that they will be rewarded highly for it.
The children are well chosen. They are often highly illiterate and they are fed a diet of anti-western and anti-Afghan Government propaganda until they are prepared to kill, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said in his introduction. As has been mentioned, the boys are also assured that they will miraculously survive the devastation that they cause. How can that be possible? A senior Afghan intelligence officer said:
“The worst part is that these children don’t think that they are killing themselves. They are often given an amulet containing Koranic verses. Mullahs tell them, ‘When this explodes you will survive and God will help you survive the fire. Only the infidels will be killed, you will be saved and your parents will go to paradise’.”
It is very clearly brainwashing, a conditioning of young people’s brains and minds.
At no time at all is it acceptable to use children as suicide bombers, and now that is spreading west—certainly the mindset is, anyway. In June this year, we learned that a 17-year-old British boy from west Yorkshire was responsible for the deaths of 10 troops near Baiji. In typical ISIS fashion, images of the boy emerged, in commemorative style, following the suicide attack. More worrying is the circulation of reports claiming that many people are not forced into carrying out these attacks, but request it. That is quite worrying. For someone who is completely committed to the Islamic State ideology, a hard-core supporter of jihadism and the caliphate, killing themselves in a suicide operation is the greatest honour that they can have. In territories controlled by Islamic State, there are even registers on which people can sign up to commit these attacks. The worrying thing is that they are brainwashed; they are conditioned to feel that it is the right thing to do. How do we address that issue?
The whole thing is glamourised. That is done purposefully to encourage easily impressionable children and young people into making dangerous and misinformed decisions. That is the heart of the issue and unfortunately it is not something that is easily resolved. In recent years, many adult fighters have found it increasingly difficult to hit their targets, and children generally prove to be more successful. For many families, there is little choice but to put their children directly in the line of fire, so to speak, in that they have to send them to schools to receive education but often those prove to be key recruitment areas for Taliban fighters. For many poor families in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a madrassa is often the only option to ensure that their children receive free education and safe lodgings; I mean “safe” in the loosest sense of the word. It is safer in terms of location, in that it is not in the streets, directly in the line of fire, but with the ever increasing threat of recruitment by Taliban fighters, the choices that parents are often faced with are extremely difficult.
Just as the fact that they are children makes no difference, nor does gender. A 10-year-old girl, Spozhmai, got international media attention when she was detained on 6 January 2014 in the southern Helmand province. She said that her brother had tried to make her blow herself up at a police checkpoint.
Perhaps the Minister and the shadow Minister will also mention this matter; I hope that I will be here for their contributions, but I may not be. The question is how we address these issues. I think that one thing that we need to do is, obviously, to have direct contact with those who are of the Muslim religion, because we have seen some indication that people with religious viewpoints are trying to persuade children and young people not to get involved.
We need to address the issue of cyber-contact. We need websites that are set up to combat the attractive scenes that they seem to set in ISIS areas. Last weekend, I heard that a group of people of the Muslim religion had set up a specific base to try to combat that. Are we working alongside such organisations to ensure that we address those issues? We have to do that in Britain as well, because the fact that young people are leaving here and going to fight for ISIS elsewhere in the world is an indication that something is not right. How do we address that issue? We need to speak to these young people. We need to be more influential. We need to be on the websites that they are looking at. We need to be telling them the truth.
In 2011, an eight-year-old girl was killed in central Uruzgan province when she carried remotely controlled explosives to a police checkpoint in a cloth bag—an eight-year-old. I ask the question: what did that eight-year-old really know? Cases of girls carrying out attacks are fewer, but they exist and I fear that they will increase as people are less likely to expect young girls to carry out such attacks. We must do more to protect vulnerable children from being recruited, brainwashed and ultimately tricked into sacrificing themselves for something that they cannot even begin to comprehend.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath on bringing this issue to the House for consideration. I thank him for giving us a chance to participate, for highlighting such an important issue, for asking for change and for asking us all to use our influence where we can among those who have influence within religious organisations. With regard to websites and whatever cyber-contact there may be, we need to ensure that these people are persuaded that there is not a future in ISIS or in being involved as a suicide bomber and that the repercussions for them and for others are too extreme.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, for the first time, at least in Westminster Hall, but undoubtedly not the last. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) on securing this very important and timely debate. I echo his remarks about our condolences to all those affected by the bombing in Turkey at the weekend and our outrage at such terrible events as well as those about the Minister’s experience and commitment to these issues; it is right that that should not be overlooked.
I am not totally certain about the protocol for these things, but I want to commend the House of Commons Library for the substantial briefing pack that it produced for the debate. It was extremely thorough, and I was struck in particular by the historical notes that it included on the role of children in conflict. It looked right back to the middle ages, when boys were used as pages; they would squire for knights and go into conflict. It went right through to the under-age boys and young men signing up surreptitiously to fight in world war two.
Just before the October recess, the Minister responded to a debate in this Chamber about the arms trade. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) spoke in that debate very powerfully about the role of child soldiers in conflict today. Some 250,000 children around the world have been conscripted into conflict against their human rights, as I will go on to say. My hon. Friend said that Governments around the world should be aiming
“to get children out of army uniforms and into school uniforms.”—[Official Report, 17 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 396WH.]
The harm caused to children and the legacy for child soldiers during the rest of their lives is well known and horrific enough, but the use of children as suicide bombers takes the involvement of children to the extreme —an extremity that, sadly, seems to be becoming the norm. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also spoke very powerfully about the complex and horrific circumstances and abuse that children experience, the conditioning that they experience, before they become a suicide bomber. That gives us all something to reflect on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said, the increasing use of suicide bombing generally and particularly that involving children perhaps reflects the changing nature of warfare today—the increasingly asymmetrical nature of warfare and conflicts around the world. It is important that we consider why that might be. We do not have an awful lot of time to do that today, but I would caution about what might often be seen as a willingness to rush into conflict rather than taking a diplomatic route. The use of indiscriminate and sometimes overwhelming military force, very blunt instruments in very complex situations, perhaps provokes equally blunt and horrific responses. None of that, of course, is an excuse for the use or involvement of children in conflict and particularly not as suicide bombers.
The rights of children are protected under the UN convention on the rights of the child, and over the past year we have marked 25 years since its signing and adoption. UNICEF has described the convention as
“the most rapidly and widely ratified international human rights treaty in history.”
As is often, sadly, the case, ratification and adoption are not necessarily the same as implementation, and there is still a duty on Governments around the world to reflect on how well they are implementing that convention—particularly article 38, which calls on Governments
“to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child…take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities…refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces”
and:
“In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts,”
to
“take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.”
The recruitment of children as suicide bombers is in direct contravention of the rights afforded to children under the convention on the rights of the child. Indeed, the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court lists
“conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities”
in international or non-international armed conflict as a war crime. Anyone recruiting or using a child as a suicide bomber is, de facto and de jure, a war criminal under the Rome statute of the ICC. That is reflected in the optional protocol to the convention on the rights of the child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, and it brings home to us the gravity of the situation and the seriousness with which we should respond.
I want to reflect on two conflicts that are, perhaps, somewhat overlooked. First, I want to mention the situation in Nigeria, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath touched on, and in particular the use of women and girls as suicide bombers in that conflict. It would be interesting to hear what representations the Government have made, or are prepared to make, to the new President of Nigeria to seek a peaceful end to that conflict and to secure the protection of children.
Secondly, I want to highlight the reports on the worsening conflict in Yemen, into which children are being drawn as soldiers or suicide bombers. The Minister may be aware of reports by Amnesty International of weapons made in Britain being sold to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen; it would be interesting to know how he plans to respond to those reports. He can expect some written questions from me on the matter.
I do not have much more to add to the profound and detailed contributions made by the two previous speakers, but I want to echo the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for information on how the Government plan to increase funding for research into the matter. What support can they provide for educational psychological services to counteract the indoctrination of children, and how will they assess risks posed to young people in the United Kingdom? How will the Government welcome and support unaccompanied refugee children into the UK? What comfort and security can those children expect when they attain adulthood? Will they be granted leave to remain in the UK, having spent their childhood here and grown up here after being taken in as refugees? Those are helpful examples of concrete steps that must be taken as part of a wider global effort to build peace and security, and above all to protect future generations from the horrors of war and conflict.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I offer my genuine thanks to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) for raising this topic. His contributions and those of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) highlighted the chilling nature of this war crime, which is being perpetrated in many regions of Africa and the middle east, and which, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath mentioned, sadly also finds origins in the United Kingdom. We need a measured approach to the problem, but we must recognise that it exists, quantify it and look at how the UK Government can support efforts, in-region and across the world, to reduce and stop the crime.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath mentioned several countries—Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Chad, to name just a few—where child suicide bombers are now being used. I had not noticed until my preparation for the debate this morning that there was a report only this weekend of women and child suicide bombers killing dozens of Nigerian refugees in Chad. The article states:
“Two women and children were among the five suicide bombers who attacked the village’s busiest markets”
in the Baga Sola region of Chad, where 36 people were killed this weekend. That emphasises the need to quantify, record and assess where, how and when child suicide bombers are used, and to take a proactive response to addressing the problem.
According to recent reports, ISIS has trained more than 1,000 children to become suicide bombers over the past six months, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath mentioned. Action on Armed Violence and UNICEF have taken a strong interest in the matter. In a report produced in August this year with the title “2015: an epidemic of suicide bombers”, Action on Armed Violence stated:
“Between January and the end of July this year, over 5,000 civilians have been killed and injured by suicide bombings globally. This is a 45% increase from the same period in 2014”.
That can be traced back to the increasing use of suicide attacks by militant rogue elements, such as ISIS/Daesh, which, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is now training people under the soubriquet “Cubs of the Caliphate”. The United Nations Human Rights Council has found that ISIL is recruiting
“children into armed roles under the guise of education”
and that children are being
“deployed in active combat during military operations, including suicide missions.”
The Iraqi Independent High Commission for Human Rights has estimated that 1,000 children have been trained to become suicide bombers.
It is clear from the events in Chad this weekend that Boko Haram in northern Nigeria and southern Chad is using child suicide bombers to a greater extent. In fact, 75% of the suicide attacks in Nigeria in the past 12 months have been undertaken by children, all of whom, as the hon. Gentleman pertinently highlighted, were girls. That says something about the mindset of the individuals who carry out the attacks. Boko Haram is exporting these practices to the neighbouring African nations of Chad and Cameroon, neither of which had experienced suicide attacks before 2015.
The UNICEF representative in Nigeria has made the important point that child suicide bombers are as much victims of the terrorist activity as they are potential perpetrators. We should remember that and look at how we can address the problem. As the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, for Strangford and for Glasgow North have said, it is one thing for an adult over the age of 18 to determine that they will undertake such activity. Throughout history, there have been kamikaze pilots, suicide attacks and suicide protests. However, for children—particularly girls—to be identified, groomed, trained and sacrificed in these attacks is a new and horrific development. We should remember that in our discussions.
This is an international problem. Who would have thought, Mr Evans, when you and I arrived in the House 23 years ago, that there would be a situation such as this? A child has been groomed in Dewsbury, travelled to an area of the world where there is an international terrorist conflict and, in that part of the world, has blown themselves up to support a cause against the interests of the United Kingdom. Who would have thought, 23 years ago, that that would happen?
There are no party divisions on this issue; something has changed and something needs addressing. The difficult question for all of us is: what can that be? If there were an easy solution, we would undertake it. The question is, what could that solution be? I will throw a few ideas on the table, which I hope will help the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. We cannot necessarily solve this problem, but we can play a role in helping to understand and address it.
The first suggestion that the Minister could seriously consider, or at least comment on, was made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath: do we know how many attacks involving children occur each year? If we see press reports of a suicide attack in a particular country, do we know whether it was undertaken by a child or an adult? Why does that matter? It matters because an attack undertaken by an adult may require a different level of motivation and response than that required in an attack undertaken by a child, which might be due to different circumstances.
All such attacks are treated the same in terms of press reports, news response and the impact on families such as the Minister’s family. We need to differentiate between them and examine which suicide attacks are undertaken by children and why. The UK Government will not make that assessment alone, but I welcome the Minister’s contribution on the idea of getting a proper assessment, through the United Nations and others, of what action is taken and how.
The second thing is a more fundamental issue that addresses not only child suicide bombers, but the development of terrorism and radicalisation generally: the use of the internet, promotional material and social media, and how that is regulated and monitored. Those are sensitive and difficult topics. The Government will look at those matters through Home Office legislation and will continue to do so on an international basis, but there has to be a balance between the freedom to promote ideas, the freedom to say things and the freedom to promote radicalisation via the internet and social media. I welcome the Minister’s contribution on that. We need an assessment of how we can deal with the issue in a positive and effective way. For example, I cannot control what happens in Syria or Chad, but I could influence people’s views on those issues through social media.
Talha Asmal was the 17-year-old from Dewsbury who detonated a vehicle fitted with explosives while fighting for a militant group in Iraq. Farooq Yunus from the Zakaria mosque in Dewsbury said that we have failed these boys. The community said:
“ISIS is running a sophisticated social media campaign and the community is concerned their faith is being used by hate preachers and internet groomers to manipulate their religion.”
It is very difficult for the UK Government to influence remote areas of Chad, where Boko Haram, an essentially fascist terrorist organisation that is not concerned about the rules of international law, captures girls and makes them go and bomb other regions of Chad. However, it is possible for the Minister, with Home Office colleagues, to look at what material comes through the internet to people such as Talha Asmal in Dewsbury. It is possible to try to track that back to see where grooming takes place. We would do that if it were paedophile material or if people were trying to secure individuals for sexual purposes. We approach this in a controlled, libertarian way, but in a way that ensures that radicalisation does not take place using those methods.
We should also look at what we need to do in-region, and that is where the Foreign Office will play its role. The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned the Nigerian president and the new Nigerian Government. I confess that they are probably as concerned about what is happening in northern Nigeria and southern Chad as the UK Government are. The question for us is, what can we do to support them to achieve their objectives of cracking down on Boko Haram and on suicide bombings by children and others? How can we help to strengthen community leaders, give advice to Governments and potentially help them with some of the issues of social media and radicalisation? We should look into how we can strengthen responsible community leaders where we can. We are not responsible for Chad and northern Nigeria, but we can help to support the Governments accordingly. It will not be simple but it is important that the Government have a strategy to look at those areas.
I was particularly struck by the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North, which I also wanted to make: that this is clearly and utterly a war crime. Would the Minister give a signal? If we have evidence that a suicide bomb in a particular country—as in the Minister’s own personal case—killed a UK citizen, in respect of war crimes should we not look at those who are potentially radicalising but not actually committing the offence as well as the issue of international murder? Will the Minister clarify what steps he believes we should take with those who are grooming and training, or developing into, suicide bombers who we know, through intelligence or through co-operation with other Governments, are undertaking those activities? There is potential for us to look at how we can help to facilitate those prosecutions and that activity. There is a role for the UK Government, on an international stage, to support the development of tackling war crime issues in international courts.
Finally, I would appreciate the Minister’s support of the suggestion by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath about unaccompanied children. If there are instances where the UK Government can help, a very productive way to assist vulnerable refugees would be for the Government to look at how we can help to take people out of conflict zones and into a place of safety. Children are made into potential suicide bombers for a range of reasons, but it is clear that their being separated from their families and falling into company encouraging such activities is certainly not a positive thing.
I welcome the debate. There will not be much difference between us on the fact that the issue is chilling, horrendous and needs to be stopped. I have mentioned some suggestions that we could look into. The Minister will, undoubtedly, make a contribution in other areas. The key thing is that, although we are not directly responsible for prevention in all spheres, there are things that we can do.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for giving us this opportunity to air the issues. I hope the Minister will be able at least to highlight some concrete potential areas of travel so that we can play our role in helping to end the conflicts that lead to this activity, to take action against the terrorist organisations that are destabilising many areas of Africa and the middle east and, particularly, to do what we can to stop the chilling phenomenon of child suicide bombers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) on securing this important debate and on his measured contribution. He struck the right tone. I also thank him for his personal comments. My family and I are grateful for the manner in which he raised those issues.
I thank other hon. Members for their contributions, and I welcome the shadow Minister to his role. He and I have known each other for some time, although not for 23 years—I have not been here that long. He comes from a Home Office background, and he has huge experience of security matters. I am pleased to see him with a Foreign Office brief. He will have much to contribute.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) covered a number of issues concerning Nigeria and Yemen, which I will address. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a regular contributor to such debates, is unfortunately not able to be in the Chamber, but he highlighted the brainwashing of children, which I will also address. I will focus primarily on the remarks, comments and thoughts of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
The use of children as suicide bombers is a grave issue, and I am sure the House is united in its condemnation and deep sadness at the practice. As we have been reminded just this weekend in Turkey, any suicide bombing is a tragedy, and the use of children as weapons in that way is truly heartbreaking. Children involved in suicide attacks, as elsewhere in armed conflicts, are first and foremost victims, not perpetrators, as the shadow Minister said. Sadly, the use of children in conflict is nothing new. For example, thousands of children fought in the Napoleonic wars and in many conflicts since, including both world wars. In more recent times, children have fought in conflicts in places such as Cambodia, Colombia, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Uganda, Chad, Burundi, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia. There is a long list of countries in which such tragic events have taken place.
What is new is the horrifying way in which children are being used as instruments of violence. As has been said today, it is a chosen form of combat. Children are lured with false promises of paradise in the afterlife, or forcibly coerced by terrorist organisations, into carrying out suicide bombings against both state and civilian targets. The nature of conflict is changing, but the way in which terrorist groups in particular exploit the most vulnerable in society in pursuit of ever more barbaric attacks is both abhorrent and cowardly.
I will set out the need both to work towards resolution of specific conflicts and to seek to address the underlying issue of extremism, which can lead to such appalling acts of violence. I will also address the four measures mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The increasing spread of suicide attacks has principally been driven by two armed groups that have been mentioned today—ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and Boko Haram mainly in north-eastern in Nigeria—although we remain deeply concerned about the use of such tactics by other terrorist groups, including groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
ISIL has used co-ordinated suicide attacks as a key part of its military strategy, and we have seen reports of children in isolated areas being forced into military training after the militant group closed their schools, leaving an estimated total of more than 670,000 children without the opportunity to receive a proper education. ISIL bombards the internet daily with shocking images of children with weapons, and even of children being present at executions. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights estimated in May that ISIL may have trained up to 1,000 children as suicide bombers since November 2014. A major step towards eradicating the abuse of children as suicide bombers is to attack the organisations that recruit them. We are utterly clear in our determination to defeat ISIL. The only way to relieve the suffering of children and adults affected by ISIL, and to counter the real and significant threat to the UK and our allies, is to defeat ISIL and establish peace and stability in the region.
Another worrying trend is the way in which ISIL, in particular, is luring young people to Iraq and Syria, as hon. Members have said. More than 700 UK-linked individuals have travelled to Iraq and Syria in recent years, and we know of at least six British nationals who have carried out suicide bombings, the youngest of whom was only 17. The problem is not confined to the so-called foreign fighters; we have also been shocked by the stories of young schoolchildren turning their backs on the safety of family and homes in the UK and of parents bringing their infant children with them into harm’s way in Syria.
In response, earlier this year, the Government introduced new legislation in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, which provides the police with temporary powers to seize a passport at the border and places the Government’s deradicalisation programme, Channel, on a statutory footing. There will be new powers to add to existing terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and there will be targeted discretionary powers to control the return to the UK of British nationals suspected of terrorism offences. There will be enhanced aviation security powers, too, and insurers will be prohibited from reimbursing payments made in response to terrorist demands.
Internationally, the UK is at the forefront of global efforts to counter ISIL. In the UN, we supported the adoption of resolution 2178 calling on all countries to take appropriate measures to stem the flow of foreign fighters to Iraq and Syria. The UK is playing a leading role in the global coalition of more than 60 nations committed to defeating ISIL. Together, we are working to defeat ISIL on all fronts: militarily; cutting off ISIL’s finances; reducing the influx of fighters; challenging ISIL’s ideology, and providing humanitarian assistance.
Boko Haram has regularly used child suicide bombers in Nigeria and neighbouring countries. It deliberately targets the weak and vulnerable, and it aims to sow seeds of unrest between communities. We estimate that more than 20,000 people have been killed and more than 2.2 million displaced by the insurgency. The use of children as suicide bombers is a particularly heinous example of this terrorist organisation’s brutality, but we remain firm in our commitment to Nigeria and its regional partners in their fight against terrorism. We are providing a substantial package of UK military intelligence and development support to Nigeria, which includes increased training programmes and advice on counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism. We have also provided £5 million to support a regional taskforce against Boko Haram itself. Like ISIL, Boko Haram must be defeated, and we are determined to ensure that it is.
More broadly, as we have seen in conflicts across the world, children continue to be used as soldiers. We are working with the UN, which leads the international response on that issue. The response includes pressing parties listed in the UN Secretary-General’s annual report on children and armed conflict to enter into concrete action plans with the UN to verify and release any child soldiers associated with armed groups and forces. We also support the campaign of the Secretary-General’s special representative to end the recruitment and use of children by Government armed forces in conflict by 2016. The UK is providing £150,000 in funding over three years to support the UN office of the special representative, which has served to increase the special representative’s capacity to monitor emerging situations of concern, in line with Security Council resolutions 1612, 1882 and 1998 on children and armed conflict. The UK has also contributed funding to support a child protection adviser in the African Union to strengthen AU policies on preventing child soldier recruitment.
The UK recognises that education is important to preventing recruitment in the first place. We have therefore allocated more than £110 million for protection, psychological support and education under the “No Lost Generation” initiative since it was launched in 2013. Partners include the Department for International Development, UNICEF, the EU and Save the Children. The initiative aims to avert having a lost generation by ensuring that every Syrian child gets a good-quality education and access to child protection and much-needed psychological support. The partners have worked with host Governments in the region in an effort to mobilise predictable long-term finance in support of national educational sector plans with strategies for refugee children to access education through public schools and alternative education provision.
On the four specific proposals mentioned by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in his speech—I was grateful to receive them beforehand, so I have no excuse for not replying to them—he first raised the importance of understanding the entire issue. The Government’s cross-departmental research, information and communications unit conducts research on a wide variety of issues related to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism. One such report, issued in February, analysed the use of children in ISIL propaganda, which has escalated in recent months, although we have yet to see an ISIL video that actually includes a child suicide bomber. The Government also continue to draw on the wealth of academic research being carried out in this country and others.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the importance of countering the indoctrination of children. Defeating terrorism is a job for us all, as the Opposition spokesman described. That means that individuals, families, communities and Governments must work together to expose the hateful beliefs of extremists, deny them space in which to operate and protect those who are vulnerable to radicalisation. One aspect of the Prevent strand of the UK counter-terrorism strategy is to protect vulnerable people, including children, from being drawn into terrorism. We are also working closely with international partners to address extremist material online and mobilise civil society to challenge extremism and find more effective ways to counter ISIL’s messaging.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked about creating a taskforce to address the issue. Although there are currently no plans to do so, I reassure him that the Government consult a wide range of stakeholders and experts as part of the policy-making process and will continue to do so as our extremism strategy is announced and rolled out in the coming months to ensure that it is as effective as possible.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the plight of unaccompanied refugee children. Through the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, the UK is helping some of the most vulnerable refugees, including survivors of torture, women and children at risk and those in need of urgent medical treatment. As the Prime Minister announced on 7 September, we will expand the existing scheme to resettle up to 20,000 Syrians in need of protection during this Parliament. I stress that that is in addition to those whom we resettle under the gateway and mandate schemes and the thousands who receive protection in the UK under normal asylum procedures.
Mr Hanson
On that point, can the Minister shed any light on this? He has mentioned again the figure of 20,000 during the course of this Parliament. Does he have any indication of how many of that 20,000 he expects, let us say, within the next nine months, which will be a critical time given where we are in the refugee crisis?
Mr Ellwood
The Prime Minister has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) to be the Refugees Minister, and he answered questions on that issue yesterday. It is not for us to do the actual selection—it is being done through UN agencies—so I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the specific number, but I will write to him with more details about how the process is forming. Time permits me to cover some of the other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked how many attacks are being made by children rather than adults. I do not have those statistics to hand, but I will certainly write to him in more detail. He is absolutely right: the approach that we take will differ depending on who is involved, and we will be able to focus in more detail if the numbers prove that in certain areas, children are used in preference to adults.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the use of social media. That is the big difference between non-state violence today and 10 or 15 years ago: a terrorist group based in far-off, distant countries can reach families and individuals here in the UK and in other parts of the world. I was astonished and taken aback when I saw the horrific images on television of the Jordanian pilot who was burned alive, but three weeks after that event, several teenagers made the journey from the UK via Turkey into Syria after seeing ISIL’s barbarity and what it stood for. It reflects, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the work that needs to be done with our communities to ensure that such people understand where they are going and what will happen to them when they join ISIL on the front line.
The use of social media is critical, and it is fair to say that we are only now coming to terms with how it is being leveraged. The information that ISIL produces online does not have to be accurate or legal, but every counter-message that we put out needs to be. I am hosting a summit at the end of this month on online extremism. We are inviting Facebook, Google, Twitter and a number of other organisations whose sites are used as vehicles by extremist organisations to pass along messages to share common practice on how to get the upper hand in countering such messages.
I also co-chair the smaller working group on strategic communications as part of the larger counter-ISIL taskforce, working with the United Arab Emirates and the United States. The Sawab centre has been set up in Abu Dhabi to monitor Twitter feeds and provide replies to some of the messages that we are seeing there, to ensure that there is an alternative view and that when ISIL puts out messages to attract people, there are imams there to say, “This is wrong. This is not how Islam should be interpreted.” It is a major step forward in countering that online messaging. It was launched last month and is already having huge success.
The Prime Minister has also announced £10 million to be spent on a co-ordination cell in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to draw together experiences not only of what we are doing in the UK, for example through the Prevent strategy, but of what other countries around the world are doing to counter extremism and the ability of such organisations—not only ISIL and Boko Haram—to recruit the young and vulnerable in society.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what more we can do in the region. I will probably have to write to him in more detail on that, but I will give the example of Tunisia. The people who attacked Sousse in June were trained by ISIL extremists in Libya. We are now working with Tunisia on a series of levels: first, on first responders, with which he will be familiar; secondly, on gathering intelligence for a better understanding of the networks operating in that country; thirdly, on tackling the ideology itself, which goes to the core of the work that needs to be done on social media and so forth.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman said that this is a war crime. He is absolutely correct; it is. Where it has been possible to track down those who have been grooming and training, via the internet or otherwise, arrests have been made.
It is very important to have this debate, not only for the Government to place on record what we have been doing, but so that we can understand the mood and concern expressed by parliamentary colleagues who want Britain to do more in the face of this immense challenge. As we heard today, children continue to be targeted, coerced and exploited during conflict, and that includes children abused by being used as suicide bombers. We must do everything we can to end those abhorrent abuses, which means degrading and defeating barbaric organisations such as ISIL and Boko Haram and working with our partners in the region and around the world.
We must also continue to use our diplomatic, security and intelligence capabilities as part of the Contest programmes—our counter-terrorism strategy—that we run to pursue and disrupt terrorist organisations where they threaten the UK and our interests overseas. Critically, as the Prime Minister said at the General Assembly of the UN last week, we must
“take away the building blocks of extremism that lead people to an extremist world view, that then takes them to an extremist terrorist view.”
In the appalling cases that we discussed today, that view can lead them to exploit and murder children.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position today and to hear the views of parliamentary colleagues.
Roger Mullin
I pay tribute to everyone who participated in the debate. I hope that it has been an important opening up of an issue to which we will no doubt return in different settings in the coming months, before we find better ways of moving forward. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his response to my suggestions. I would like to reflect on a couple of matters.
One is about the need for research. I heard what was said about the Government having undertaken internal reviews and talked to academics and the like, but we need more of what academics call primary research. It struck me that when looking at the emerging numbers and patterns, we are inevitably drawn to make assumptions about motives and the motivations for what has happened, and I am as much at fault as anybody in this debate. However, rather than base our understanding on assumptions made through the prism of our culture and where we are based, we need more primary research to get into the hearts and minds of those involved in these horrendous activities. Such research would be tremendously difficult to undertake. Academics have made a few forays into the field, but we need to consider how more could be done to understand properly the motives and connections that lie behind these activities. I hope that the Government will continue to think about how they can improve their knowledge base.
Secondly, I ask the Government to pay further attention to refugees. I heard and understood what the Minister said about the assessments of who are appropriate refugees coming from other agencies, but the Government provide those agencies with the brief setting out their concerns. I ask the Government to ensure that there is sufficient resource and back-up available in the UK and that those agencies that undertake assessments on behalf of the Government, as part of the refugee programme, pay attention to the problem of unaccompanied children.
In the past couple of weeks, I have spoken to different agencies involved in providing counselling and psychological services in my constituency, including a migrants forum that provides befriending services and the like. I assure the Minister that people in the voluntary sector, as well as the statutory sector, could provide better meaningful support here to some of those young children than can be given in a camp, and I am sure that that is true for many parts of the country. I simply ask the Government to give that matter further consideration.
The main thing that I want to say to everybody is thank you for participating in the debate. It has been important and I hope that we will all charge ourselves with the task of keeping a strong focus on the issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of use of children as suicide bombers.
Prostitution (Prosecution Trends)
(9 years, 1 month 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
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered trends in prosecutions for prostitution.
Women who sell sex on the streets have always been the most visible, most vulnerable and most stigmatised part of the sex trade. However, in the past two years, for the first time in our recent history, they have also become the most targeted by the state. In this debate, I will outline how the burden of criminality has shifted in our law courts between those who sell sex and those who procure it. Remarkably, despite there being a broad and publicly stated consensus among the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office, survivors’ groups, health services and academics that women in prostitution should be diverted from our criminal justice system, those women are being targeted—in some cases, at twice the rate of men.
We in this House know that views on prostitution can be deeply polarised. For some, prostitution is simply a matter of private choices, while for others the harm that it inflicts on individuals and communities requires the state to take proportionate action. It is therefore no surprise that our legislators rarely visit prostitution policy. It is politically charged; a subject where the need to prevent exploitation seemingly clashes head-on with notions of liberal freedom, and where there are few simple answers, a disputed evidence base and, frankly, very few votes. Also, I have yet to see evidence to suggest that MPs are different from the rest of the population, within which one in 10 men have purchased sex. Therefore, it is little wonder that last year’s report by the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade, which I chair, on how the law should change was the first major cross-party intervention on this subject for some 20 years.
In taking evidence for that report, we spoke to women who sell sex and the men who buy it, as well as to the agencies we ask to police prostitution and the services we ask to pick up the pieces. Our conclusion was stark: because our lawmakers send no clear signals about the nature of prostitution, the most visible people involved—those who sell sex—are targeted, while the men who create the demand often walk away, without taking responsibility for the damage that they do. Therefore, the figures that I will highlight today are just another symptom of a broader problem.
Once, there were consistently more prosecutions for kerb crawling, brothel-keeping and control of prostitution, but in each year since 2013 there have been more prosecutions for soliciting and loitering than for profiting from prostitution and kerb crawling. In simple terms, offences that are, by and large, committed by men with choice, freedom and money in their pockets have a blind eye turned to them, while women are being targeted, and this trend is accelerating. In the law courts and in prosecutions, the most vulnerable party involved in the transaction carries the burden of criminality and punishment.
The total number of prosecutions for all prostitution offences in England and Wales has been decreasing since 2010, but not in a uniform fashion. Let us take on-street sex buying as an example. In 2013-14, just 237 prosecutions were brought for kerb crawling, but there were 553 prosecutions—more than twice as many—for soliciting and loitering. There is a similar pattern in the 2014-15 figures, with 227 charges for kerb crawling reaching court compared with 456 prosecutions initiated against people selling sex. Just 83 prosecutions for control of prostitution—pimping—were brought in the same year. Those figures refer to men and women on the same streets, and it takes a particular kind of liberal delusion to be convinced that prostitution is caused by a surge of women wishing to sell sex rather than by men wishing to purchase it. Yet it is women who sell sex who are targeted in our law courts, not the men who create the demand in the first place.
The current situation goes against the Crown Prosecution Service’s own guidance:
“Prostitution is addressed as sexual exploitation within the overall CPS Violence Against Women (VAW) strategy because of its gendered nature. As with other VAW crimes, a multi-agency approach is needed to enable women involved in prostitution to develop routes out of prostitution, and to provide the most appropriate support…The ACPO’s policy and strategy for policing prostitution is clear in its commitment to recognise prostitution as a victim-centred crime, and that those who are abused and exploited require holistic help and support to exit prostitution. There is a need to adopt a multi-agency approach and work with voluntary sector organisations to enable those involved in prostitution to change their lifestyles and to develop routes out.
At the same time, those who abuse and exploit those involved in prostitution should be rigorously investigated and prosecuted, and enforcement activity focused on those who create the demand for on-street sex, such as kerb crawlers.”
That is the guidance—why then is this happening? For the same reason it always does. In our criminal justice system, stigmatised poor women are still, tragically, valued less than moneyed, often professional, men. As I have said, the number of prostitution-related offences is down, but that does not reflect a reduction in the size of the trade, nor in its inherently exploitative and violent nature.
Some reductions could be welcome. For example, the 75% reduction in prosecutions over the past six years for brothel keeping could reflect a more sensitive approach by the police to the requirement to protect, without coercion, a small number of women working together, but between 2008-09 and 2013-14 there was a nearly 50% drop in prosecutions for pimping, a 35% drop in prosecutions for kerb crawling and a 74% drop in prosecutions for advertising prostitution. All those offences concern the people who create the demand for, or exploit, the most vulnerable in the transaction—women who sell sex. And it is still women; prostitution remains highly gendered, with the 2004 Home Office publication “Paying the Price” putting the ratio of women to men at 4:1. In 2014-15, more than double the number of prosecutions were initiated for soliciting and loitering—offences committed by and large by women—than for kerb crawling, which is committed almost exclusively by men. In fact, in the past two years there have been more prosecutions for loitering and soliciting than for pimping, brothel keeping, kerb crawling and advertising prostitution combined. There may be an alternative explanation, but my reading of the figures is that there is a consistent thesis that as police funding has been squeezed, the focus of the law around prostitution has been diminished and downgraded, the level of resources going into ongoing and targeted operations to prevent exploitation has reduced, and instead of going after those who create the demand and enable pimping, advertising or coercion—for understandable reasons the most resource-intensive operations—the authorities are going after the most visible part of the trade, and the quickest win: the women.
Despite differing views about how the legal settlement should be enacted, all sides in the debate have come together in the desire to see women diverted from the courts. Let us remember that it is still possible today, in 2015, for women to go to prison for offences related to prostitution, for example, for being unable to pay fines imposed for a series of prostitution-related offences. This debate raises those issues directly with the Ministers responsible, in the hope that they will reiterate and reinforce the current guidance and direct the police to take more measures to tackle demand rather than supply. To be honest, the prosecution bias against women in the law courts is not the problem; it is merely a symptom. The bias will be tackled only when the law reflects the inherent harm the trade presents to women, rather than sending mixed signals.
In the 2014 report produced by our all-party parliamentary group on prostitution and the global sex trade, “Shifting the Burden”, alarming submissions highlighted the number of women in the trade who were survivors of child sexual exploitation, or were care leavers, or who had entered at an age where they could not consent. For most women in on-street work, drug and alcohol abuse is a fact of life. All that is a world away from the myth of the “happy hooker” promoted on television and in film. We reported that the legislation is complicated and confusing, and that loopholes still exist that allow men to escape prosecution for abusing girls as young as 13, and for trafficking women into the country to be raped repeatedly.
We also showed that policing and enforcement is unevenly prioritised and resourced across the country, with a few exceptions that are made possible only through extraordinary political leadership at a local level. We examined why girls at risk of entry were not effectively diverted and why women who wished to exit were unable to do so, often as a direct result of the law’s stigmatising effect, and we looked at how notions of choice were deeply problematic where the sex trade was concerned. We also demonstrated the effect that prostitution had on wider cultural attitudes with regard to gender equality and how demand might be tackled by making it less socially acceptable to choose to buy sex.
In short, we recommended a shift in the burden of criminality from the most vulnerable and marginalised to those who create the demand in the first place. That is why I welcome the work of the “End Demand” campaign, with more than 40 organisations working to end the demand that fuels sex trafficking and prostitution, and advocating the adoption of a sex-buyer law throughout the UK. Such a law would criminalise paying for sex, while decriminalising its sale and providing support and exiting services for those exploited by prostitution. Next month, the campaign’s report by a commission of expert witnesses on how a sex-buyer law could effectively be put into practice will be published, and I welcome that. Regardless of big changes in the law, however, I do not see how anyone can support the current state of affairs, with more prosecutions being brought against women than against men.
I would welcome the Minister’s addressing the following issues in her response. First, I would welcome her reiterating the guidance about the diversion of women from the criminal justice system wherever possible, and reinforcing the instruction to go after those who create the demand, or coerce or exploit those in prostitution. The ratio of women to men being prosecuted should return to pre-2013 levels. Secondly, will the Minister update the House on the progress of the violence against women and girls strategy on which consultation recently closed? Specifically, will she inform us whether the Westminster Government will follow the example of Holyrood and formally treat prostitution as a form of violence against women?
Thirdly, will the Minister state what more can be done to ensure that the police are directed—and have the resources—to go after those who control and create the demand for prostitution rather than their using crude measures to move on-street prostitution on, further trapping women in cycles of abuse? Finally, will she reassure me that the authorities are not targeting women because they are easier to arrest and prosecute? That goes against the Government’s own guidance, and against common sense and any sense of natural justice. In doing all that, I hope that the Minister will be able to make things an awful lot safer for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
It is an honour and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker) on securing the debate, and on his article on the New Statesman website, which I recommend to anyone listening. I know that he takes a great interest in this area, and I appreciate the points he raised. It is clear from what he said, as well as from the previous debates during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill, that he and other hon. Members have strong views on this issue.
I start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that the Government and I share his clearly stated desire to protect all women—particularly vulnerable women—from violence. As the Minister for Preventing Abuse and Exploitation, I am determined to do everything I can to protect victims and to bring perpetrators to justice. I recognise the harm and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution, and the Government are committed to tackling that. In that context, we cannot look at prostitution in isolation from the broader work taking place across Government and beyond to eradicate violence against women and girls, to protect vulnerable people and to tackle exploitation in all its forms. Protecting victims from crime remains at the heart of our approach. We can do that by preventing crime from occurring in the first place, supporting victims through the criminal justice system and helping them to recover, regain their confidence, and reclaim their lives. In short, we need to believe them, take them seriously and listen to them.
In March, the Government published a report detailing progress in tackling violence against women and girls—if you will forgive me, Mr Evans, I will refer to it as VAWG from now on, which is the acronym that we all recognise— over the last Parliament. Our commitment to that important work continues: the previous Government ring-fenced £40 million for VAWG services—that is £10 million a year—and the Government are continuing that funding to April 2016. We are consulting on refreshing our VAWG strategy, which will be published later this year. I will say a little more on that in a moment.
It is important to recognise that local areas are in the best position to identify and respond to issues in their areas, and that includes the complex problems that can be associated with prostitution. Working alongside front-line organisations, other agencies and the Crown Prosecution Service as appropriate, local police are in the best position to respond. They know what to prosecute, when and why. The police are assisted in that by guidance from the national policing lead for prostitution, which makes clear that the police’s first priority is the protection of often vulnerable individuals from violent and sexual crimes. The national policing lead’s strategy for policing prostitution is clear on that, and the message will be emphasised in the refreshed and updated strategy due to be published later this year.
To be clear, the protection of victims is the Government’s priority, and our work on refreshing our VAWG strategy is based on that. As the hon. Gentleman said, we continue to work on that. I am leaving straight after this debate to have another round-table discussion on refreshing the strategy. I look forward to presenting that refreshed strategy, which will put victims at the heart of everything we do.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about multi-agency working. He is absolutely right: the issue cannot be tackled solely through arrests and the criminal justice system; it has to be tackled by all agencies working together and by ensuring that women feel they have the support they need to not be forced into prostitution in the first place and that if they are, they will be helped out of it.
Legislation and prosecutions are only one aspect of the response. The police and the CPS are empowered by a degree of discretion in arresting, charging and prosecuting. We want them to use that discretion sensibly and appropriately, based on the circumstances of each case. That will allow them to focus on what causes the most harm.
Members will know that legislation on prostitution has grown somewhat organically over time. The most recent changes to offences in this area were made by the Policing and Crime Act 2009. Prosecution data from the Crown Prosecution Service show that there were 83 prosecutions for controlling prostitution in 2014-15, compared with 58 in the previous year. That represents a continuation of the increase in prosecutions since 2011 and reflects a focus on tackling exploitation. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was also an increase in prosecutions for brothel offences: 96 in 2014-15, compared with 55 in the previous year.
However, prosecutions are not everything. Many factors can contribute to women’s presence in a brothel. They may be victims or perpetrators of exploitation, running or profiting from activities. Importantly, where the police refer cases to the CPS, there is discretion and guidance on whether to charge and prosecute. Generally, the degree of coercion and control of a prostitute’s activities, as well as penalising those who profit from their earnings, will determine the public interest in prosecuting. The CPS’s approach emphasises that anyone abused and exploited through prostitution needs help and support on health and welfare to exit prostitution. The CPS is encouraged to adopt a partnership approach with local authorities and other statutory and non-statutory organisations to find routes out of prostitution other than charging.
It is worth noting that the longer-term trend for the number of offences of soliciting for prostitution recorded by the police in England and Wales is downward. Since 2010-11, fewer than a thousand such offences have been recorded annually—it was 868 in 2014-15, compared with more than 2,000 in 2002-03. Of those, only approximately half were prosecuted, and prosecutions are also showing a downward trend. Those figures will reflect a number of factors, including incidence, community concerns and police enforcement approaches.
Strong moral and ethical questions are raised by prostitution, but the Government’s overriding priority remains the safety of people involved in prostitution. Existing legislation regarding buying and selling sex is focused on minimising the harm and exploitation that can be associated with prostitution. Most recently, for example, the Government removed all references to the misleading and unhelpful terms “child prostitution” and “child pornography” from statute during the passage of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That was in recognition of the exploitation that can be associated with prostitution and clearly shows our shared duty to protect the most vulnerable, particularly children.
Different legislative approaches have been adopted in different jurisdictions. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the approach in Sweden and some neighbouring countries, which is often referred to as the Nordic model. I am also aware of recent legislative developments in Northern Ireland, and we will follow their implementation and impact with interest. It is important to reflect that an alternative view challenges the position that all paying for sex is by definition violence. That has been expressed by a variety of organisations, including those that represent people involved in prostitution. It was expressed most recently by Amnesty International, which changed its position.
It is difficult to argue that any single legislative approach to prostitution is ideal. A perfect solution probably does not exist. To be clear, I am not suggesting that those involved in prostitution have made an independent and free choice to do so. In fact, during my work on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, I met many victims of trafficking who were forced into prostitution entirely against their will. We all recognise the need for the law to protect the vulnerable and punish the perpetrator, but when considering alternative legislative approaches we must consider carefully whether we are confident that they support the safety of those involved in prostitution. I continue to and have always been willing to listen to the evidence about what works to keep the public safe. At this stage, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence of the value of such significant changes to the legal and moral position of buying sexual services in reducing harm to those involved, but I will continue to watch with interest.
We hear differing views on this issue whenever it is debated, and I respect Members’ genuinely held positions on how to achieve the best outcomes for often vulnerable individuals. The issues around prostitution are complex and contentious, but regardless of the legal position of prostitution, the law on rape and sexual assault is crystal clear and unequivocal. We expect every report of violence to be treated seriously from the time it is reported, every victim to be treated with dignity and every investigation and prosecution to be conducted thoroughly and professionally. In that context, it is important to reflect on the increased reporting rates for these terrible crimes, which show that victims increasingly have the confidence to report and can access the support they deserve. I am proud of the progress we are making in tackling all aspects of violence against women and girls and in protecting all victims. As the Minister for Preventing Abuse and Exploitation, I am determined to do everything I can to protect victims and bring perpetrators to justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Media Plurality (Wales)
(9 years, 1 month 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
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered media plurality in Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Chope. I am pleased to be able to bring this issue to the attention of the House. The issue of media plurality in Wales is one of growing concern for many in a Welsh context, mainly because we have undoubtedly reached a position where Wales is more clearly defined as an administrative and political entity than possibly at any time in its history, and yet there is a question as to whether its administrative and political distinctiveness is recognised in public discourse in the Welsh media.
The purpose of the debate is to highlight concerns about issues relating to the media in Wales and the way in which we are served by the media in Wales. I also want to ask the Minister a few questions. I am sure he will be able to respond to my points either in full today or in due course. To give the Minister an opportunity to have a think while I speak, I will list the main areas that I wish to talk about in this debate. First, as I have said, we need to recognise the changed political and administrative situation in Wales. We are undoubtedly part of the United Kingdom with a distinct Government and administrative system, and that needs to be recognised. Indeed, the Welsh political system is increasingly being taken seriously. For example, the decision of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) to put his name forward for election to the Welsh Assembly shows that the way in which the political situation in Wales is developing affects decisions made by hon. Members in Westminster, so we need to recognise that political entity and its existence.
However, we need to ask ourselves whether our media portray that entity fully, and whether the consumption of media in Wales reflects the changed political situation that we face in Wales. Do we have sufficient discussion within the media, whether in the printed media, online, in newspapers or on television and radio? Do we have a consumption in Wales that allows for a discussion of our political discourse that contributes fully to the way in which our democracy works? There is a question as to whether we have such media in place.
Then we need to ask ourselves whether there are shortcomings in the printed media in the Welsh context. We are increasingly dependent on two daily Welsh titles that see a regular fall in sales. The question we then have to ask is whether Wales and Welsh politics are taken seriously by the UK media. We can make a contrast between the situations in Scotland and Wales, for example, so I will touch on those issues as well.
The print media in Wales are declining. I will talk about the figures, but when we see the reduction in the Western Mail and Daily Post sales figures, it is impossible to deny that. What does that decline tell us about what is expected of the Welsh media by the Welsh people? Is there a lack of interest or is it a response to what is perceived to be a declining product, with some exceptions, I am sure? If the print media situation is as bad as I am making out—I will provide statistics that imply that the situation is pretty dire—we have to ask ourselves whether that results in a dependency on the broadcast media that is far beyond what we see in many other parts of the United Kingdom. Again, I will provide statistics that show how the dependence of the Welsh public on broadcast media—television and radio—is much clearer in Wales than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
For example, more people get their news in a Welsh context from the television than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Is that a good or a bad thing? Does that lead to a dependence—an overdependence, perhaps—on the BBC? That is not an attack on the BBC, but do we want to end up in a situation in which most news is provided in Wales by one broadcaster? Granted, some of the BBC output goes out on S4C as well, but we are talking about one broadcaster, the BBC, being responsible for the two main radio stations in Wales, for the BBC news output in English and the S4C news output in Welsh. Is that a healthy situation? Is it the best use of licence payer and taxpayer funding if we end up in a situation where the BBC has almost a monopoly?
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
There is a problem in north-east Wales where the BBC output in certain parts comes either from the north-west or the midlands. The hon. Gentleman talked about overdependence on the BBC, but it could be said to be overdependence on the wrong type of BBC.
Guto Bebb
I am fascinated by the concept of the wrong type of BBC, but I understand what the hon. Lady says. Even in my constituency, which is significantly further west than the hon. Lady’s, we have the phenomenon of people turning their aerials towards the north-west because, apart from wind farms, there is nothing to stop signals from the north-west hitting the north Wales coast. It is a fact that people in north-west Wales pick up media from the north-west of England.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear the final point that I will touch on: the situation in relation to S4C and how it can fit into the whole media situation in Wales.
Is the political discourse a problem? I think it clearly is. Any politician knows that it is a problem, because when we knock on doors—I am sure I am not giving away any secrets—we often feel frustrated at people’s lack of understanding about the way in which they are governed. I find it very frustrating, having had a full two years of showing how clearly the Welsh NHS is failing. Some hon. Members will disagree on that point, but it is frustrating to fight a general election with people telling me on the doorstep that they are not voting for me because I am a member of the Government, and the Government are closing maternity units in north Wales. That is the type of frustration that politicians are aware of.
The question is: how can people make the right decision? How can we have an accountable Welsh Assembly if people do not even know what the Assembly is responsible for and they are not even following the discussions that lead to decisions? For example, decisions on the maternity unit in Glan Clwyd are made in Cardiff through the health board, but that accountability is missing in a Welsh context. Frankly, after 18 years of the Welsh Assembly, such lack of accountability is something that should concern all of us. If all political parties believe the Welsh Assembly is central to the way in which Wales is governed and that we should have devolution to greater or lesser extent—there are disagreements as to exactly how much—and if there is a feeling that we should have a devolved Administration who are responsible for crucial decisions in a Welsh context, we have to ask ourselves whether there is a lack of a coherent discussion of the issues relating to people in Wales in the printed media and the media in general. Clearly we have a problem, and I would argue that it is pretty much undisputed that there is a democratic deficit in the way in which public issues and affairs are discussed in a Welsh context. That issue should concern all of us on a cross-party basis. The responses might differ from party to party, but the concern should be genuine and heartfelt among all Members of this House and all people involved in politics in a Welsh context.
The problem arises to a large extent because more than 90% of the printed media read in Wales comes from London. I have nothing against London. I happily live here three to four days a week, and I would be lost without my daily morning paper and certainly my Sunday papers. I know I am in a minority in still enjoying a morning paper. Indeed, my daughter is now doing the same paper round that I used to do 30 years ago. That shows we believe in equality in our household, because she has taken over the paper round from my son. When I did the paper round, I delivered to more than 50 houses, but that has gone down to less than 20. Clearly, there is a decline that is not related to Wales alone. The key point, though, is that as 90% of the printed media sold in Wales come from London, there are clearly questions to be asked. First, why are the Welsh media declining so quickly? Secondly, why do London media not do in Wales what they do in Scotland?
We should ask serious questions about the contrast between Wales and Scotland. There are three daily national newspapers in Scotland, all of which sell more than the two papers we have in Wales. On top of that, Scotland has two regional papers with significant distribution and sales. Furthermore, no fewer than seven UK titles produce Scottish editions. It is difficult to argue that there is not a more lively debate about politics in Scotland than in Wales. I am not saying that that is all down to the failure of the media—politicians must take responsibility as well—but it is difficult to have an engaged discussion when so much of the content people read daily does not address Welsh issues.
Even if some parties present were unhappy with the Daily Mail’s campaign on the Welsh NHS last year, there was something quite refreshing about the fact that day after day for several weeks a London-based newspaper concentrated on the so-called failures of the Welsh Government. I should be clear that I am not trying to make a political point, but in my view there is no doubt that that campaign resulted in public discourse about the Welsh context, because suddenly the London papers were taking an interest in Wales. That type of discussion of Welsh matters should not be confined to one-off issues with, perhaps, a slightly partisan political agenda in the background. I happen to think that the Daily Mail was highlighting important issues of concern to us all, but I respect the fact that some people in the Cardiff Administration would respectfully disagree. I think we would all agree that if there is a perceived failing of the Welsh Government, that should be highlighted in the media read by the people of Wales. If not, we have a problem.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. What role does he see for a vibrant and powerful local press? In my constituency, the Tivy-Side Advertiser and the Cambrian News have led some very spirited and robust defences of our local health service, yet I think he would agree that, sadly, the local press is also in retreat.
Guto Bebb
Indeed, I was going to touch on that. It is significant that Wales has a track record of a strong regional press, although it could be argued that it has been subject to far too much centralisation of ownership. There is a vibrant local press in Wales, but I checked the figures with the Library this morning, and, as far as I am aware, not a single one of our newspapers is showing an increase in sales. Some declining sales are truly worrying. In my constituency, the North Wales Weekly News has given up on its valley edition. It still produces two editions for the coast, but sales are falling.
The Caernarfon & Denbigh Herald was immortalised in a pop song by a group called Y Cynghorwyr, who argued that it says it in the Caernarfon & Denbigh so it must be true: “Mae o’n dweud yn y Caernarfon & Denbigh, y papur sy’n dweud y gwir”. For a newspaper to be immortalised in a pop song but suddenly find its sales falling below 9,000 must be a concern for the regional press. Yes, there is a regional press that can take up the slack, and there is no doubt that, for example, the regional press in north Wales has been at the forefront of the issue when it comes to concerns about the A55 or the health service, but is it in a position to respond positively as sales fall dramatically? I suspect not.
The Institute of Welsh Affairs recently did some media monitoring and found that between 1999 and 2013 the number of journalists working in the local and national press in Wales—I will call the Daily Post and the Western Mail a national press—went from 700 to around 110 or 115. That fall is significant. In my constituency I have first-class journalists who work for both the Weekly News and the Daily Post. They might cover an issue in Llandudno in the morning and then be in another constituency covering a different issue for the Daily Post in the afternoon. They are multi-tasking in order to keep the show on the road. I am not sure whether, in the long term, that will result in the vibrant culture we need for discussion of what is going on in Wales.
There is no denying that the decline has resulted in cuts that, it could be argued, reduce the appeal of the regional press. On Sunday, I was delighted to see the Daily Post print a Sunday edition for the first time in its history. It says a lot about this debate, as the purpose of that edition, on which I warmly congratulate the Daily Post, was to celebrate Welsh sporting success after the Welsh rugby and football teams qualified. I must add that both teams qualified after losing, but that did not stop the Daily Post making a big issue of the success of our Welsh sporting heroes—good for them for doing so. I would be delighted to see the Daily Post appearing again Sunday in future. Nevertheless, that masks the real situation, because there is a decline in the regional press and in our two main daily titles in Wales, resulting in the dominance of public discourse in Wales by the broadcast media, which probably means the BBC in the form of BBC 1 and S4C news content, and Radio Cymru on Radio Wales.
Before I turn to the dominance of the BBC, it is worth mentioning people’s expectations and hopes for online media as an alternative. There is no doubt that the Daily Post and the Western Mail have dramatically increased their online content. The BBC provides a sterling service in trying to cover Wales online in both languages, but I have concerns, as well as hope. For all its faults, the Welsh Assembly has at least recognised the importance of some degree of alternative plurality in Welsh news gathering. Golwg360 is a second online news provider that has been made possible through Welsh Government funding, and I welcome it as a response to the need for diversity in online news. As a Welsh speaker, I welcome the fact that I am able to turn to the BBC and to Golwg360 and find that the content is not always the same—it is often significantly different—but if we acknowledge that there has been a market failure in the provision of plural voices in Welsh online, we should also recognise that there is an issue with online provision in English.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the quality of online content? I am heartily sick of reading 20 things I wanted to know—or did not want to know—about some celebrity, some aspect of our geography or whatever.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and approaching it in his usual style. We have debated intervention in this declining market at length. First, does he welcome the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s welcome efforts with Made in Cardiff and the increase in local television news? Secondly, I say unashamedly that S4C is based in Cardiff North for now, although of course there are plans for it to go elsewhere. If we look at S4C’s spending, we see that 82% goes on independent broadcasts and supporting the independent network. I commend that as a way in which the media in Wales could approach supporting the sector.
Guto Bebb
I agree with both my hon. Friend’s points. We should applaud the success of a local television network in the Cardiff area, but that does not address the needs of the whole of Wales—of course, that is not to decry the success of such a service in the Cardiff area. I welcome S4C’s spend in the Welsh context and how that can foster a plurality of providers in production companies and so on. The fact that we have an independent television sector in Wales is in many ways a direct result of the existence of S4C. That plurality of production companies, if not of final destinations for programmes, is something that I welcome very warmly.
I mentioned our over-dependence on television for news in a Welsh context. The figures are stark. In most of the UK, about 45% of people get their main news from television; in Wales, the figure is more than 60%. Strikingly, because commercial radio is much more successful in most of the United Kingdom than in Wales, the figures on the number of people in Wales getting their news from the radio is slightly lower than in the rest of the UK. The overall picture, however, is clear: we have a dependence on the broadcast media that is not replicated in the rest of the United Kingdom. We should be concerned about that.
Even more concerning was a study of the 2007 Welsh Assembly election. No respondents to the survey said they gained their news about the election from London-based newspapers. It is difficult to see how there can be a democratic debate if 90% of the newspapers sold in Wales are London-based and contain no coverage of the election. Some 42% of the news that people received about the 2007 Assembly election came from BBC Wales. Obviously, we should congratulate BBC Wales for getting that reach, but before the BBC gets too proud of itself I should point out that the same survey showed that 55% said that their main source of information about the campaign was the polling card, and 72% said it was political literature—so it could be argued that we beat the BBC’s reach.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Although S4C and Welsh-language broadcasting covers very Welsh issues, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong to separate that from the British context? Wales is a part of Britain, and if we are going to continue to subsidise the Welsh-language channel—inevitably it will need a degree of subsidy in the future—it would be wrong for the British Government just to say, “That’s a matter for the Welsh Government. They do not need a contribution from the British Government.” It would be a mistake to isolate the Welsh language as an issue to be dealt with only in Wales and say that it has no consequence for Britain; that would extend the trends he is talking about in other forms of media.
Guto Bebb
I have come to this debate without all the answers, but with many questions. That question is worthy of consideration.
The S4C viewing figures, which include viewing figures from platforms available in England, show a significant following of S4C programmes from viewers based in England. The Welsh language is one of the ancient languages of the United Kingdom, and therefore it should not be looked at in isolation from things that happen on this side of the border. The viewing figures show that S4C undoubtedly provides a service for people living on the other side of Offa’s dyke. It is the same for Radio Cymru’s radio provision. People who enter competitions in the daytime often live in Wolverhampton and Liverpool, happily listening to Radio Cymru. I accept that this debate should not be a Welsh-only debate, but it is important that it does not ignore Wales completely by becoming London-centric. I am genuinely concerned about that.
The figures show our dependence on broadcast media. There is a concern—again, this is not an anti-BBC point—that our dependence on the broadcast media in a Welsh context becomes a dependence on the BBC. The provision of news in Welsh and English in Wales comes from the BBC. If somebody watches BBC news or S4C’s news, they are watching a BBC product. The same is true of Radio Cymru and Radio Wales.
I was recently talking to my wife about this issue. She said that she seldom watches the nine o’clock news on S4C because she has heard most of the content on “Post Prynhawn” on Radio Cymru at 5 pm. That is a genuine concern. If we think that the viewing figures for “Newyddion Naw” on S4C—about 25,000—are not high enough, we need to ask why. When we acknowledge that people in Wales are dependent on the broadcast media for their news, we also acknowledge that they are dependent on the BBC for that content. I wonder whether the fact that 85% of all news content in Wales is provided by one provider is healthy. That is not to say that the BBC is doing anything wrong, but do we need more plurality? If News International provided 85% of all news content in a Welsh context, I suspect that most Opposition parties would complain. The same should stand in relation to the BBC.
We are slowly starting to have a debate in a Welsh context. The Media Reform Coalition and the Institute of Welsh Affairs are starting to talk about these issues, but we need to move forward at a much faster pace. Frankly, it is not just that the provision of information and news is lacking; our democratic institutions in Wales will be undermined if we do not deal with this issue quickly.
There is no denying that S4C is an important issue for all of us who care about broadcasting in a Welsh context. For those of us who are worried about the future of the Welsh language, it is an even more important issue. Most Government Members were willing to consider the spending reductions in 2010 in the context of the spending review, the real challenges facing the Government and other institutions, and the need for them to live within their means. But we need to ask ourselves a simple question: should the future of S4C be decided solely as an add-on to the charter review process, which is being undertaken in London?
The BBC has a budget of some £3.6 billion, and the grant for S4C and the programmes provided by the BBC comes to about £90 million. In the context of a £3.6 billion budget, it is difficult to argue that the £90 million that goes to S4C will be the tail that wags the dog. My concern is that S4C will be forgotten in the charter renewal process. We need to ask ourselves seriously whether it is enough for S4C to be considered as part of the charter review process, or whether an independent review should be undertaken in relation to S4C to ask a simple question: after 33 years, what exactly is the point of a dedicated Welsh-language broadcaster in the 21st century? I think the answer would be very positive indeed, but we have not asked that question since the channel was established in 1982.
In 2010, when the changes were announced to the funding of S4C, and when the reduction to the funding of the BBC and S4C was announced, the then Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport promised that there would be an independent review into the future of S4C at the same time as the charter review. I think that would be welcomed in Wales—not because S4C is more important than any other broadcast element of the Welsh media picture, but because a review would be a starting point for asking serious questions about what exactly we want from the Welsh media in a Welsh context. I would argue strongly, therefore, that the promise that was part of the 2010 settlement should be delivered. I think there is an appetite in Wales for looking creatively and constructively at how to utilise and fund S4C in the future and at how to protect what is important in delivering a service to the people of Wales.
If an independent review is instigated—one was discussed in 2010, but the details were not as forthcoming as they should have been—it is crucial that it should be freed from the issue of cost and money saving. It is important that there should be a two-year provision of financial stability while the review is undertaken, and I would argue that that provision should come from both the BBC and DCMS. I appreciate that the Minister does not represent DCMS, so will not be able to give me certainty about funding streams from another Department. However, if there is an independent review, it has to take place in the context of a stable financial situation.
Mr Williams
I very much welcome the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I echo the need for stability, which is particularly important for the independent production sector, given the scale of some of the small enterprises. They are facing the prospect a £2.7 million cut in the central Government spending review, and possibly, if there is a 20% reduction from the BBC to S4C, a £15 million cut for S4C, which would have dire implications for the independent production sector.
Guto Bebb
It is difficult to escape the likelihood of real consequences. It is staggering how well S4C has coped with the funding reductions that were part of the 2010 settlement, but, given that less than 4% of the total budget goes on overheads, any further cuts will clearly be to programming, which would be a further kick to media plurality in a Welsh context. The review should not be just about S4C; it should be a starting point for an ongoing civic discussion in a Welsh context about what we want our media to provide.
I am coming to the end of my very long speech, Mr Chope; I apologise. We should be looking at the issue of the plurality of news content, which worries me as somebody who is obsessed with news and interested in current affairs—as I should be, given the job that I do. Ofcom states clearly that if our desired outcome is a plurality of media ownership, we should prevent any one media owner or voice from having too much influence on public opinion. That is certainly the situation in Wales. S4C is a recognition of market failure; it would not exist were we dependent on the market. As a free-market capitalist, I accept that. I believe in the free market, but I also believe that it does not always have all the solutions to all the problems that we face.
If S4C is to respond to the need to provide a service to Welsh speakers in a Welsh context, financial intervention through the licence fee payer, through the taxpayer, should be used for a further common good. For example, why does the deal between the BBC and S4C for 10 hours of BBC programming every week include news content? It must be easy for the BBC because it is not duplicating any services, but if we are concerned about the plurality of news content in Wales, such issues should be considered seriously in any independent review of S4C.
If such a review took place, it would also be an independent review of the media situation in the whole of Wales, because the organisations are so interlinked. If S4C could commission a new service from another provider, that would impact on the BBC, so an independent review would be a real step in the right direction in responding to the deficit in the provision of media content that allows us to discuss what is going on in Wales in a real and proper manner.
This is an important and, to a large extent, a cross-party issue. However, I fully recognise that decisions will have to be made and that my Government will have to respond to some of my points. I am not hiding from that responsibility. I hope that the Government will listen carefully. They responded positively in the past when calls were made to protect S4C’s budget. There is an opportunity here not only to respond to those who want to protect S4C, but to consider carefully how S4C fits into the media pattern in Wales and how, if we recognise a market failure, the intervention of licence fee payer and taxpayer money could deal with some of the deficiencies in media plurality in Wales. We need the opportunity to discuss matters in a Welsh context in the same way as happens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and certainly here in London.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this debate. The topic has been of concern to me throughout my political career, from the campaigns in the ’70s and ’80s to set up S4C to today, via the debate on media plurality in July, during which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) spoke eloquently. At that time, if I remember correctly, I said that Welsh broadcasting, specifically Welsh-language broadcasting, is an issue for the entire UK in that S4C is probably the largest contributor to the diversity of UK broadcasting, providing so many hours in a language other than English. Were one the ubiquitous Martian, arriving on this planet and looking at broadcasting in the UK, where would one look for diversity? S4C would obviously be what that Martian would see.
I must take issue with what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who is no longer in his place, said about the subsidy for S4C. One could argue that the licence fee is just a subsidy. I do not know why we should single out S4C as having a subsidy; ITV is subsidised by the advertising industry. Subsidy is a pejorative term and we should not be using it.
As the hon. Member for Aberconwy said, Wales now has a clearer identity than at any point over several hundred years at least, but it is not in the league of the “Great British” identity, with TV schedules containing the Great British this and the Great British that. There are not that many listings for the Great Welsh this or the Great Welsh that, but Wales has a clear media identity. Paradoxically, the sources of information available to our population seem to get more precarious and narrower.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the incredibly high penetration of newspapers from England. People in Scotland get their news from domestic sources, but people in Wales get their news from sources outside Wales. One could almost compare the situation to the infamous entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that read, “For Wales, see England.” That could be the case here. The interesting thing to note is that if one looked at the entry for England, there was virtually nothing about Wales, which rather says it all—plus ça change.
There is a legitimate concern that Trinity Mirror owns both large—largish—newspapers in Wales, the Daily Post and the Western Mail. The hon. Gentleman referred to News International, and the situation in Wales is something of a monopoly. Although other newspaper companies exist—the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is no longer in his place, referred to the Cambrian News, which is widely read, and the Tivy-Side Advertiser—the papers in the national forum, if such a thing exists, are owned by the same company. That is not such a concern regarding content, but for the newspapers’ general future direction. I made a point about the quality of online provision and the pressure on journalists to get the “click”. They have to formulate their reports in such a way that allows them to be put online quickly, which leads to issues of quality.
New technology allows all kinds of options, not only in newspapers, but on television. I was recently interviewed by a journalist who set up his own camera and sound recording equipment and then rushed around the back to ensure that everything was working and then rushed around the front to question me. I am unfortunately old enough to remember being interviewed by local broadcast journalists with two or three crew, and by national or UK-wide journalists with two Land Rovers-full of crew, who turned up in Caernarfon to interview me.
Falling circulation is a problem common to all newspapers, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the problem is particularly acute in Wales given the centrality to the national debate of the small number of newspapers. As there are really only two quasi-national newspapers, any fall in their circulation is of deep concern.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Institute of Welsh Affairs, which is to publish a report on 11 November showing that the circulation of Welsh newspapers has again fallen dramatically. The statistics that I have do not give much depth, but they report a fall of 60% in the circulation of the South Wales Echo and a 33% drop in sales of the Daily Post. I do not know over what period that relates to, but it gives an impression of the trend. It is also reported that the Western Mail now sells only 17,815 copies a day, which must be a concern for a national newspaper.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On that point about the Western Mail being a national daily newspaper for Wales, it has barely ever featured on the reading agenda in my part of west Wales. That is not an insult to the paper; we have just never read the Western Mail in Pembrokeshire and not much in Carmarthenshire either. Is the hon. Gentleman’s point that we are somehow worse off as a result of not having access to the paper? We have never really historically had one at all. I do not quite understand why this is the tragedy that he makes it out to be when it has never been an issue for us.
Hywel Williams
I am all for diversity. Of course, the Daily Post is the paper for the north, and perhaps I can regale Members with a brief story. When I moved from Cardiff to Pwllheli many years ago, I asked the local shop to keep the Western Mail for me. I think I was its only reader there at the time, and it was kept next to the Morning Star and the men’s magazines at the back. There are other newspapers in south Wales and north Wales that have a particular importance.
While I am referring to amusing matters from the past, I should also mention that I once asked my mother why she bothered reading the Daily Post, and she, being an elderly lady, gave me a very straight answer: “I only buy it for the deaths.” Whatever sells newspapers is important, but it is also important that we talk to each other. However, I do not want to reminisce too much.
One small sector—Welsh-language community newspapers—is doing quite well, and other newspapers could learn a great deal from papurau bro, as they are called. They are very small and very local, but their market penetration is enormous—about half the people they serve might look at them at some point. We are talking about circulations of 1,000 or 2,000, but these papers give people what they want, and growth in such provision might be one way forward.
As the hon. Member for Aberconwy said, television is extremely important in Wales because so many people get whatever Welsh news they get from it, rather than from newspapers. We have a very successful news service, albeit limited and provided mainly by the BBC. Although provision in English, on, say, “Wales Today”, tends to be somewhat domestic—one might even say parochial—the news in Welsh addresses international issues. Quite amusingly, it has a network of people around the world—they are not professional journalists of course—who can contribute, and it can find people in Ontario, Mexico or wherever. The other day, when Wales played Fiji at rugby, Radio Cymru went for a comment, not to the ground or to Cardiff, but to a Welsh person living in Fiji, who told us all about the game. That has its weaknesses, but there is a breadth of provision.
All broadcasters face the challenge of declining audiences, as people turn to alternative ways of getting their television, either by delaying watching or by choosing alternative ways of viewing. When I was preparing for the debate in July, I looked at what the Audience Council Wales had said. It used a very striking phrase, which I quoted in my speech. It said broadcasters in Wales were living
“closer to the cliff edge”
than ever before. Broadcasters might be living, and they might be on the right side of the cliff edge, but their position is more precarious than in the past.
The point about S4C is that, although people may be able to access their news in English from anywhere around the world—from Fox News, from the BBC in London or from France 24, which has a service in English—S4C is the only place in the world, and indeed the universe, where people can get a full Welsh-language TV news service. In that respect, it is extremely precious and must be defended. Its decline is particularly serious and dangerous.
The BBC and S4C have had funding cuts. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about possibly reviewing S4C; broadcasting is in a period of extreme fluidity, with all the talk about the licence fee and charter renewal, so this might be an opportune time to do so. However, we should not concentrate just on S4C, because it does quite well. Despite the fact that the news comes from one source—the BBC—and despite all the other problems we might associate with it, the service does at least come through, and people do watch it and get a diverse range of views. I would not, therefore, want to limit a review just to S4C, because that might problematise the service in a way that is probably unfounded.
I noted the hon. Gentleman’s wish to have a freeze on cost-cutting for two years. Certainty of funding is incredibly important for television. The production cycle is not six months or a year, but often much more than two years. Those involved need certainty so that they can produce the high-quality programmes we have seen in the past, which have won such international renown for S4C. Given the circumstances, and given the pressure on Government and BBC expenditure, a two-year freeze might be something of a vain hope, but I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate hon. Members on both sides on their contributions.
As has been said, media plurality is at the heart of any healthy democracy. The United Kingdom is a vibrant, diverse, complex and, at times, eccentric country. It is essential that our broadcasting reflect that. It is also important that we have not only a diverse creative sector, but a plurality of current affairs sources.
Wales is an important, lively and diverse nation within the United Kingdom, and it has its own distinctive language and culture. I cannot claim to have any Welsh connections, but it is often remarked that there are similarities between the north-east, where I am from, and Wales in terms of people’s warmth, eloquence and attractive accent, and, unfortunately, in terms of the decline in some of their more classic industries.
It is critical that Wales should have a plurality of broadcasters that not only encourages different viewpoints, but ensures that Welsh people are informed of matters that are important to them. Having a critical mass of media production also stimulates the creative industries, which create jobs.
It has been clear for some time that UK media coverage of Welsh affairs is poor, to put it mildly. Representing a constituency 290 miles from London, I have first-hand knowledge of how insular a national media based almost entirely in London can be. Indeed, I have held debates in this room about the effect that that has on the diversity, or lack of it, in the national media. It was, indeed, in July that the contribution by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) helped to familiarise me with the unique situation in Wales and some of the challenges there.
In the north-east, there is a strong regional news presence to fill that gap. I am grateful to our locally based Journal and Chronical, as well as to the Made in Tyne & Wear channel, and indeed to BBC’s “Look North” and to “Tyne Tees” news, which have a local base, even though they are not locally headquartered.
It is important to remember that non-devolved services are covered in the UK news, and they are relevant to my constituents, but much less so to Welsh ones. It is clear from speeches made on both sides of the Chamber that the market for current affairs in Wales is failing to provide adequate services for the Welsh people. BBC Wales covers the National Assembly, as we have heard, but it is essential that people should be afforded a choice of current affairs programming and coverage. Coverage is being reduced, and the problems that traditional media organisations across the UK experience are exacerbated for Welsh content providers.
Susan Elan Jones
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech. Does she agree that a difference between the north-east of England and Wales is that the BBC provides a network of local radio stations in England, but that in Wales we no longer have that? We do not have the old Radio Clwyd, Radio Gwent or the others. That is a big oversight, and the BBC needs to look at the issue again.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend intervened just as I was going to mention her in another context. She is quite right that a local radio network, particularly a BBC one, is an important part of media plurality, providing a local or regional insight and perspective on the news. I do not know where we would be without local coverage of our great sporting events, for example. I was grateful to her for making the point that large parts of north-east Wales cannot, in any case, receive BBC Wales, so its impact is limited and that encourages many Welsh citizens to turn to the national UK media outlets.
The fact that many Welsh people choose to consume UK media may also be a symptom of the convergence of media outlets. We cannot and do not want to stop the rise of digital and new media, and the innovation that that brings. However, as Ofcom’s Welsh advisory committee has noted:
“None of the London-based newspaper titles publishes a Welsh edition and there is almost a total absence of Welsh content in UK-wide newspapers.”
Historically, as we have heard, north and south Wales have different papers, and many Welsh people, if not the majority, take UK papers. While technology is disrupting traditional media models and creating many innovative online communities and interest groups—we have heard some of the hopes for the future in that regard—it has yet to provide a model that pays for local journalists on the ground covering events in communities and council chambers, or even the National Assembly Chamber. I speak as a champion of the internet when I say that we must recognise that the internet is not yet an alternative to independent professional journalism—certainly not yet in Wales. Ofcom’s advisory committee on Wales reported what many people have known for some time: that the situation is a cause for considerable concern and is getting worse.
Now a double whammy of cuts is coming down the track for public service broadcasters in Wales. The Chancellor’s decision to make the BBC pay for free TV licences for those over 75 has resulted in cuts to services. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport confirmed that Welsh programming would not be spared. As to the direct funding—I do not believe it is a subsidy—from DCMS for Welsh output, it has been reported in the media, although of course we do not know, that DCMS is planning for 40% cuts to its budget. In those circumstances it is highly likely that there are further cuts in the pipeline for Welsh output; but of course it is for the Minister to give us certainty about that.
Guto Bebb
The hon. Lady is right to make the point about the decision to agree with the BBC that the licence fee should come out of its budget; but from the point of view of concern about S4C, which is a small part of the BBC’s funding stream, surely the point is that the director-general agreed without any consultation with S4C, even though there were funding implications for it. Surely if the BBC were serious about its role in protecting S4C it would at least have consulted before making an agreement.
Chi Onwurah
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree that there should have been consultation with S4C, but I would also make the observation that the Secretary of State made his decision without consulting anyone, and in direct contradiction of criticisms he made while he was the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. In a democratic country we would expect consultation on a decision as important as funding, and obviously that would include consulting S4C on its funding.
I want to finish with some questions to the Minister. I am curious about what assessment he has made of the cuts, in a situation that is already a cause for serious concern. I have asked DCMS Ministers that question about a number of areas over the years and the answer is all too often a variation on “not much”. I hope that a Wales Office Minister can do better. What is the Minister doing to improve and strengthen media plurality in Wales? What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government and DCMS on cuts to Welsh public sector broadcasters? What assessment have the Government made of the effects of cuts on those broadcasters both before and since they were made? What discussions has he had with national media organisations more broadly, in the private and public sectors, about their coverage in Wales? Does he agree that there is a crisis in Welsh media plurality, and can he point to a policy or plan to address it?
I am sure that the Minister agrees with me and hon. Members about the importance of the issue to Wales. I am leaving as much time as he could need to set out how he plans to tackle it. The challenge is a long-term one that is not likely to go away without intervention from his Department, working in partnership across Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I welcome this debate on an important issue, and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who has shown an interest in the subject for many years since he came to the House. He is a champion of plurality, S4C, the Welsh language and news consumption, which are matters I want to return to.
I thank all the hon. Members who spoke. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) highlighted the role of Made in Cardiff TV and of S4C, which is based in his constituency. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) reflected on a range of issues, including papurau bro. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is not in his place at the moment, highlighted the relevance of local media, and the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) talked about radio broadcasts and the impact of what has been happening in north-east Wales in particular. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) left me with a list of questions that I will do my best to answer as the debate develops.
It was also a pleasure to hear contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) and for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who is looking forward to the move of S4C from Cardiff North to his constituency—no doubt he will be not only an existing champion, but a future champion of the interests of the channel.
In Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the public’s ability to access a wide range of news, views and information about the world, nation or region in which they live is central to the health of democracy and society. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy talked about the changing political nature of Wales, and devolution rightly underlines the need for distinct and robust media outlets to contribute to the effective scrutiny of decisions made by tiers of government at all levels—it is essential to have accountability; a word he rightly used for testing policy and holding decision makers to account.
I recognise the specific challenges for media plurality in Wales outlined by hon. Members, in particular where the Welsh language is involved, and I will return to some of those points. Some issues were highlighted in Ofcom’s report on the future of public service broadcasting published in July, in particular our heavy reliance on BBC and S4C output for news and information about Wales. That point was also made by my hon. Friend.
I also recognise the importance of the Welsh context. Our topography has always presented challenges for terrestrial television coverage—for example, on commercial digital terrestrial television multiplexes—as well as for FM and DAB coverage. There has always been a battle over access to the broadcasting spectrum in Wales, which has arguably been characterised by fewer local commercial radio stations. Lower broadband take-up is another challenge because of the topography, although we are making excellent progress in closing the gap, but that has contributed to higher take-up of satellite TV than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The debate has focused significantly on S4C. The channel has helped Wales to create one of the most dynamic examples of a creative industry cluster in the UK and beyond. In that context, it was a privilege to host a meeting at the Wales Office between key independent programme makers and companies and Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru, the independent representative body, with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport only a couple of weeks ago. It was an opportunity for the independents to highlight their priorities for the Secretary of State and for him better to understand the needs of the sector in Wales.
Many of the companies involved are international in their outlook and operations. Their form rightly evolves and responds to the ever-changing marketplace. They have attracted private equity interest and takeovers, demonstrating the constant evolution and interest maintained in the industry from the perspective not only of viewers, but of the investments that result in a successful industry.
The success of Welsh television production has led to internationally recognised awards that have opened up significant export markets. Welsh-made television shows and formats are now sold worldwide. We have even had a Welsh hill farmer presenting on a French television programme—Gareth Wyn Jones, a farmer from Conwy, who originally starred in “The Hill Farm”, a show that has won an award from the British Academy of Film and Television Arts. He was asked to front a travel show on Wales for a major French television channel. That demonstrates diversity, which was one of the points made by the hon. Member for Arfon.
As well as a scene of dynamic independents, Wales has become a hub of creativity and a desirable place to make programmes, and I need only mention a few: the BBC 1 drama series “The Indian Doctor”, which has been sold to the US, China, Estonia, Mexico and Israel; “Dr Who”, for which Wales is the production centre and which is an iconic success of British television that has aired in more than 200 countries and been dubbed into many languages; S4C’s “Fferm Ffactor”, which is now licensed and produced in Denmark, Sweden and China; “Hinterland”, which was filmed in both Welsh and English, highlighting innovation and significant economies of scale from co-operating with the BBC and creating interest overseas from other independents; and children’s programmes shown on CBBC, with BAFTA-winning spin-off apps demonstrating the divergence between modern and traditional broadcasting technology.
Wales is home to more than 50 television and animation companies, which collectively generate around £1 billion a year for the Welsh economy. That all contributes greatly to employment in Wales, and last year 51,000 people were employed in the creative industries—a 10.5% increase since 2011—and 80,000 in the wider creative economy.
We have not given too much attention to plurality in radio in our debate, but it is relevant to the issues that were raised. I am pleased that the BBC is extending its national DAB coverage with 22 new transmitters across Wales by the end of 2015. Furthermore, with the BBC and commercial radio, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is investing up to £7.75 million to extend local DAB to match local commercial FM coverage. That will support further plurality in broadcasting in Wales, for which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central called. I hope that that will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
The benefits will be more choice of digital radio services for Welsh listeners and substantial improvements in BBC radio and BBC Radio Cymru digital coverage. Equally importantly, that offers opportunities for local and regional commercial radio services, which are popular throughout Wales and which play an important part in the plurality of news services—an important point highlighted by the hon. Member for Clwyd South. The new technology will provide more opportunities to fill the gaps, where they exist. I recognise, however, that more needs to be done further to enhance digital radio coverage in Wales—something we highlighted in the BBC Green Paper.
As hon. Members have mentioned, Wales does not have as strong a print media sector as Scotland or Northern Ireland. Ofcom, in its recent assessment of public service broadcasting across the UK, highlighted the fact that most daily newspaper readers read newspapers that include little content related specifically to Wales and the National Assembly for Wales—something that was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy. While the print circulation of dailies in Wales continues to decline, along with the circulation of dailies throughout the United Kingdom, online services go from strength to strength. There has been little coverage of that in the debate so far.
Media Wales is one example, with its Wales Online brand doubling its audience last year, according to the latest ABC—Audit Bureau of Circulations—figures. North and south Wales are specifically targeted by Media Wales through the Western Mail and the Daily Post brand. It is also worth highlighting, however, the fact that Wales’s highest-selling daily newspaper, the South Wales Evening Post, based in Swansea, has also shown a strong performance online.
Other regional groups are important. The Tindle group has an exceptionally strong presence in my constituency, with the Glamorgan GEM series, but also in Monmouth, Pembrokeshire and elsewhere. Newsquest has the Barry & District News and the Penarth Times in my constituency, and the South Wales Argus in south-east Wales, as well as publications elsewhere. Similarly, its focus has shifted to its online output, on top of the weekly sales or distribution of its papers.
Glyn Davies
I thank the Minister for giving me the chance to mention the County Times in Montgomeryshire —probably the only newspaper sold in Wales that has not yet had a mention today. My constituency is close to Shropshire, so it is also worth mentioning the Shropshire Star, a hugely important newspaper in Wales. These media, including internet companies in Welshpool and Newtown, are growing incredibly rapidly and having significant influence. A whole range of providers in eastern Wales might not have featured in the debate until I intervened.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend has a strong reputation for carrying the front page—and not only of the County Times, in which he regularly features; I remember him even making the front page of the Daily Star, which certainly brought his name to the attention of many, particularly in Wales. He rightly champions the County Times and I know the interest he shows in it, but mid-Wales is an area with a gap in local radio coverage. That is recognised and ties in with the point made by the hon. Member for Clwyd South.
Guto Bebb
I want to focus again on online content. It is important to recognise that the media in Wales, whether south or north, such as the BBC and Golwg 360, is doing a great job in providing content on the internet. However, having spoken to some such organisations, my concern is about their ability to generate an income from online activities; that income is not growing as fast as the decline in income from trade sales. Great work is being done, but that online provision will soon be lost unless that gap can be plugged quickly.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The online market is still new and different newspapers are seeking different approaches to capitalise on the readership they are generating to try to create an income. We all know that News UK’s online news is a paid-for service, which is different from what some of the other UK national newspapers are pursuing. The market will mature in time, but he rightly makes the point about the switch from selling daily newspapers to media online. I do not think that they are mutually exclusive; they are complementary, but a model needs to be developed to suit their individual communities.
Much attention has been given to UK national newspapers and their lack of coverage of Wales. However, there have been some positive steps. I mentioned News UK, and we need to recognise that The Sun on Sunday and The Sunday Times now have Welsh editions. That is at an early stage and it is a limited adjustment compared with different newspapers, but it is a welcome, positive step. When Wales beats England in the rugby, it will be a Welsh rugby player on the front page celebrating rather than what might be on the front of the English version: commiserations for an English rugby player disappointed at Welsh success.
On a more serious note, the news emphasis is changing. We need to pay tribute to and welcome News UK’s intervention and hope that other newspapers will follow that model and that the readership will increase as a result of reflecting the needs and demands of Wales as a wider community.
In addition, local and hyper-local media projects are of growing importance and have helped plurality in Wales. They are supported by the destination local project, which is supported by Nesta and other partners. In one such project, the papur bro—community newspaper—in Caernarvon is working with television company Cwmni Da and further education college Coleg Menai to create a Welsh-language mobile and digital service to provide hyper-local news and information to the community; the hon. Member for Arfon touched on that briefly.
As we draw to the debate’s close, I want to say a few words about the Government’s overall approach to media plurality.
Susan Elan Jones
The Minister referred to papurau bro—community newspapers. Does he recognise that one of the great features of those hyper-local news outlets is that in many cases they have existed for a very long time? I think of the Nene, the papur bro in Rhosllanerchrugog. What they provide is absolutely unique and, in many cases, that has been one of the reasons for encouraging the Welsh language in many communities across Wales.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. Any innovation and new technology that can be brought to the papurau bro to allow them to maintain their audiences and reach new ones over time is to be encouraged. It is good to see broadcasting companies such as Cwmni Da working with the papurau bro to try to bring about new technology and allow their economies of scale to be used.
In terms of the overall approach to media plurality, the Government have two roles to play. The first is to see that public service broadcasting is in good shape in the nations and regions. The second is to ensure that all parts of the UK continue to be served by an effective range of services that represent a range of media voices, including the Welsh language in Wales.
On television, public service broadcasting in Wales is in pretty good shape. ITV Wales was separated from the Wales and west regional licence in January 2014, which means that Wales has its own commercial, English-language PSB channel. In addition, local news requirements for ITV licences were strengthened, and I pay tribute to ITV Wales for how it has responded and for what it achieves with more limited resources than other public service broadcasters. It offers a genuinely high quality service, which creates much better choice for viewers who can decide which options to pursue.
We have also ensured that S4C continues to make its contribution to Welsh cultural life and to the diversity and variety of TV content across the UK, as many have mentioned, including the hon. Member for Arfon. It is easy to take S4C for granted and not recognise that it is pretty unique—not just in the UK, but in Europe. We should also recognise that the previous comprehensive spending review protected S4C’s financial position.
It would be premature of me to respond to questions on how the current CSR will affect the channel. Discussions are ongoing, but our commitment to Welsh-language programming and the future of S4C stands. That is relevant to the BBC’s charter renewal, which is also ongoing and includes the relationship between the BBC and S4C as well as the BBC’s role in the nations.
Some have expressed concern about the reduction in English-language output in Wales, which I am pleased to see the BBC is looking at, as highlighted in the evidence it has presented for the charter renewal. It has said that it wants to protect the interests of the nations of the UK in charter renewal and I trust that that extends to S4C. We would encourage that.
We have said many times that we will safeguard S4C’s editorial and operational independence. The call for a review, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy, will certainly be taken into account. It is interesting and will be considered as part of the BBC’s charter renewal process. He is a steadfast champion of S4C and hosted a similar debate on this subject five years ago. Its outcome led to the current settlement. Many at the time doubted or criticised that outcome, so it is ironic that the same people are now calling for the current position to be maintained. The reality is that we gave a manifesto pledge to secure its future and we will always respect S4C’s editorial and operational independence. That was promised five years ago and has been delivered since then. His call for a review of S4C is interesting and something that we will look at in the context of the BBC’s charter renewal and the CSR.
It is worth highlighting the other side of broadcast media as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North: the emergence of local TV services in Cardiff, which have been on air for nearly 12 months. Services in Mold and Swansea are due to launch shortly, which will give more choice in new and local programming. It is early days for those services, but we hope that they will be able to grow audiences and that, with their clear remits for local news and information, they will help to strengthen local democracy and accountability by giving attention to local issues.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with Ofcom to support Mold’s application to extend services to Wrexham, which I know a number of Welsh Members on both sides have raised with the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey).
With only 10 stations, however, Wales does not appear to have embraced community radio in the same way as Scotland has, with its 26 stations. Community radio is especially important for rural areas that are under-served by radio as a whole. Stations such as Tudno FM in Llandudno, MônFM in Anglesey and Radio Glan Clwyd in Bodelwyddan are well established. They provide a fantastic and valuable resource for their communities, broadening the choice of services, and are examples that can be built on to deal with some of the gaps elsewhere in Wales that I have highlighted. But there are no community stations in mid or west Wales. I want to look at that with DCMS and Ofcom as part of the planning for the next round of community radio licensing. The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy mentioned that when he responded to the debate on community radio held on 8 September, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling).
The Government’s second responsibility is for the media market, and has two important aspects: first, to ensure that we have workable rules on media ownership and secondly, to ensure that we have a robust and objective framework for measuring media plurality. On the first aspect, Ofcom reviews the media ownership rules every three years. It will report to the Culture Secretary on its latest review in November, and the Government will consider its findings carefully before deciding whether action is required.
As for the second aspect, in July 2013 the Government carried out a consultation on what the scope of the measurement framework for media plurality should be. From a range of options, we concluded that online media should be included, for some of the reasons that have been highlighted in the debate. We also concluded that news and current affairs are the type and content of media most relevant to media plurality, a point many hon. Members have underlined today.
The scope of the framework should include all organisations that impact on news and current affairs services, including organisations that generate, gather and aggregate news, services that could affect discoverability and accessibility—online news services, for example—and professional and non-professional commentary such as blogs and social media. We also concluded that the BBC should be included within the review. The framework must deliver indicators capable of illustrating the situation at UK level and in each of the nations of the UK, and should examine issues at a regional and local level in some areas. However, full examination of every local area is not anticipated. Following the consultation, in September 2014 we commissioned Ofcom to develop a measurement framework for media plurality. That work is ongoing.
In the couple of minutes remaining, I will return to the issue of the BBC’s dominance in broadcasting in Wales. We are all familiar with the fact that the BBC has responsibility for 10 hours of broadcasting for S4C. The content of that 10 hours is not stipulated and it is of course for the S4C executive to negotiate and decide what those 10 hours should consist of—it need not necessarily be news content. I am interested to hear about any discussions that have taken place between the two organisations because, as the Ofcom report highlights and as many contributions from across the Chamber have championed, diversity and plurality in news outlets are exceptionally important.
We have highlighted local, ultra-local, regional and national newspapers as well as online coverage and the commercial output from ITV Wales, but we need to recognise the BBC’s unique role. It can provide greater opportunities for other organisations—competitors, as it were—to develop in the market, which would be welcome. It is for S4C to decide where it will commission its news from. There was an interesting debate on that matter some six or more years ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy raised it in his championing of the channel. He has always been a champion of S4C, as have many other Members here.
I thank you for chairing our debate, Mr Chope. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to a discussion that has been a very effective contribution to the charter renewal discussions and the comprehensive spending review negotiations.
Guto Bebb
I thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for their responses to the debate. I suspected that the Minister would not be in a position to make any promises on the question of finance and I understand why. I appreciate his positive comments and am aware that in the ongoing negotiations within Government we have in him a strong champion for broadcasting in Wales of all types—whether online or on radio, in Welsh or in English. I thank him for his response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered media plurality in Wales.
Burton Magistrates Court
(9 years, 1 month 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
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed closure of Burton Magistrates’ Court.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope—it is the first time I have done so and is a great honour. I am grateful to the Minister for giving up her time to take part in the debate. My dealings on the subject to date have been with her ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who I must admit has been extremely positive in giving up his time to discuss the issue with me and other Members; I think he realises the importance of getting this right. However, my premise today is that we have got this very badly wrong.
I do not wish to be a deficit denier or to pretend that we do not need to reform our courts; in fact, I absolutely support reforming our court system to make it modern and applicable to the way we live our lives today, taking advantage of modern technology. I also recognise that in times of austerity, when we have to make the best use of taxpayers’ money, we have to look at innovative ways of providing services to our citizens. However, I have to say that in this case the Ministry has got it very badly wrong.
On 16 July, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service published its proposal for reforming the court system. The proposal contained a list of courts that the service believes are not providing
“appropriate value for…public money”
due to either poor facilities or low use. I will argue strongly that neither of those is the case for Burton magistrates court. It was, however, one of the courts on the list, and its inclusion has shocked local residents. The court has a reputation as a thriving, efficient community asset providing access to local justice. In fact, my residents are so upset and concerned about the proposal that there is now a 2,000 signature petition against it. When there is such concern among our constituents that they sign a petition in such large numbers we must address it and consider why it has arisen.
As the Member of Parliament for Burton I was immediately concerned that Burton’s inclusion was a huge mistake. During the past two months I have undertaken a detailed examination of the Tribunals Service’s reasoning and the evidence it has provided, and have found a number of errors that seriously undermine the validity of the Department’s arguments.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I would have spoken in the debate, but it is only a 30-minute one, so I will settle for making an intervention. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point on behalf of Burton. I am here on behalf of Buxton court—there is only an r and an x between Burton and Buxton and when I saw the debate title I thought, “They have picked my court debate.” Does he agree that the consultation document on Buxton court in my constituency of High Peak is riddled with inaccuracies, errors, mistakes and inconsistencies that render it—I am sorry to have to say this—completely and utterly useless?
Andrew Griffiths
While there might be a letter or two between my hon. Friend and I, there is nothing between us in our view of these consultations and the validity of the evidence they contain. They are riddled with mistakes; he is absolutely right. If the Minister and her colleague are to stick to their word, and if this consultation is to be based on fact and on evidence, they must reconsider the glaring inaccuracies in the proposals.
[Sir David Amess in the Chair]
Let me move on to the reasons why I think there are mistakes in the proposals for Burton. First, Burton magistrates court’s closure would require court users to make impossible or unreasonably lengthy journeys. The utilisation figures that the Tribunals Service has used to assess Burton magistrates court are incorrect. Burton magistrates court is, I believe, one of the best and most efficient in the country. According to the Tribunals Service’s own statistics, Burton magistrates court is performing better than the local and national average in terms of providing justice swiftly and effectively. The Tribunals Service has mischaracterised the quality of Burton’s facilities, which are much better than Cannock magistrates court, which is set to replace it.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As the people of South Derbyshire also use Burton magistrates court, will he assure me that in his strong defence of keeping the court open, he will bear in mind the importance of South Derbyshire folk’s not having to travel to Cannock, which would be utterly ludicrous?
Andrew Griffiths
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and her strong support for this campaign. She, like me, understands the impact of this court closure on our constituents. It is true that closing Burton magistrates court would leave nowhere in the south-east of Staffordshire that is suitable for, for instance, family work, which I know she is particularly interested in.
Let us get down to the nitty-gritty of the facts that the Ministry of Justice is using to defend this proposed closure. The proposal contains travel times for each court. The Tribunals Service has included a chart detailing what percentage of people will have to travel 30 minutes, 60 minutes and so on. In order to work that information out, it is necessary to know where each individual is travelling to and from. In other words, it is necessary to know what the new local justice areas will be and where the replacement court will be. Of course, the new local justice areas are not established in the proposals. That information is not there, so the Department is sticking its finger in the air and guessing.
It transpires that many of the estimated times are completely inaccurate. The Tribunals Service has included estimated times from Burton magistrates court to each of the replacement courts. As the proposal itself admits, not everybody lives in Burton town centre. For instance, my constituents would have to travel into Burton town centre and then get another bus to the replacement court, which would add a considerable amount of time. For the purposes of today, I have worked out travel times simply from the centre of Burton, where the magistrates court is.
Let us look at the travel times we would be considering for my constituents to reach Cannock magistrates court. By car, it would be 45 to 55 minutes, but of course, only 52% of my constituents own a car. That means that almost half would be forced to use public transport. The Minister will be shocked to learn that we are talking about a travel time by bus of one hour and 56 minutes to get to Cannock, including two changes, and one hour and 53 minutes to return. That is a total travel time of three hours and 49 minutes. It is hard to see how that is access to local justice. By train, it is little better; it is one hour and 51 minutes to get there, including one change, and one hour and 49 minutes to return—a round trip of three hours and 40 minutes. That includes, importantly, a 60-minute walk time, because there is no other way of accessing the court. Derby, of course, is much quicker, with a total travel time of one hour and 32 minutes. The other proposal is to send court work to north Staffordshire justice centre, which is in Newcastle-under-Lyme. By car, that would be a 45-minute trip each way, but by bus, it would be three hours and eight minutes to get there and two hours and 57 minutes to get back.
Andrew Bingham
This has an eerie ring of familiarity about it, because the document for my court in High Peak shows that 73% of public transport journeys for my constituents will take more than two hours. That is to Chesterfield, which is not practical. This is another example of inaccuracies and a lack of thinking in the consultation.
Andrew Griffiths
I absolutely agree. When we are talking about a travel time to access a court that is as long as it would take me to fly to America, we certainly have a problem. I do not think the Minister has properly understood how she has been let down by the information contained in this document.
The document suggests that the Tribunals Service will use more video conferencing and that there will be new ways of working that will not require people to travel. However, I have spoken to the magistrates at Burton, the solicitors and everyone involved, and it is clear that in Burton only a small proportion of the work dealt with is amenable to video conferencing. It simply will not be possible to do that in the vast majority of the court cases that Burton deals with.
There is another point: court cases start at 10 am. It is absolutely impossible to get to Newcastle-under-Lyme for a 10 am court case. We understand that there is a requirement for the accused to attend court, but if there is physically no way for them to get there, what will be the consequence? Even more so, what will be the consequence for the witnesses? We already have a problem with court cases having to be delayed and adjourned because witnesses have not turned up. What will be the situation when we are expecting witnesses to give up six hours of their time just to get to and from court? It is simply unacceptable and unworkable, and the Minister must understand that.
Perhaps the most alarming statistic in the table is the 60 minutes of walking required of train users going to and from Cannock magistrates court. Even if one replaces part of that journey with a bus ride—costing an extra £4.20, I add—one would have to walk for 46 minutes, which is simply unrealistic for people with mobility issues. The significance of that cannot be overestimated. The Government’s proposal would make it impossible for a large section of the community—disabled people—to access justice, simply because they are physically incapable of reaching the location of their hearing. Under both domestic and European Union legislation, public authorities, including the Courts and Tribunals Service, are required to accommodate the reasonable needs of the disabled. How are we accommodating those needs if we are preventing these people from accessing the court system?
It is also important to remember that difficulties in reaching courts affect not only those involved in the proceedings but their families and the support that people might expect during the court case. Jane Garner, senior victim service manager at Victim Support Staffordshire, has pointed out that these people, who provide important support to all witnesses, will not have their travel expenses reimbursed and so will not be there.
Lastly, the fact that there are so few travel options between Burton and the replacement courts raises a serious concern in terms of victim and witness safety. It will not be uncommon for a defendant on bail and a victim to have to travel on the same public transport at the same time. As we have heard, no bus can get a person there for 10 o’clock. People will be forced to use the same bus—imagine the distress that would be caused if a victim has to spend an hour and a half on a bus with somebody who has assaulted or intimidated them. What are the implications for witness safety and the safety of the process? Intimidation of witnesses and victims must not be underestimated, and there is no way, under the proposal, that we can guarantee the safety of those victims and witnesses.
The Tribunals Service would require court users to travel for unreasonable lengths of time to arrive at their hearings. Moreover, the closure of Burton magistrates court would actively discriminate against those with mobility issues and raise massive safety questions as a result. That is serious enough, but the Department’s proposal is based on a completely false premise, which is the number of courtrooms that are available at Burton magistrates court. According to the Tribunals Service’s proposal, Burton magistrates court has four courtrooms, but that, I am sorry to say, is incorrect. Burton has three courtrooms and one advocates’ room, which, since the closure of Burton county court in 2013, has very occasionally been used as a spillover room for private proceedings. In fact, there is no sign for court four in the reception, because it is never used.
At 6 metres by 3.5 metres, the advocates’ room is little more than a glorified broom cupboard. It is not fit for purpose. Because of its size, parties are forced to sit uncomfortably close to each other, almost banging knees. That is particularly problematic in the kind of acrimonious family cases for which it is used. To make matters worse, the room has no security staff.
Unsurprisingly, the advocates’ room is only ever used as a last resort. From January to August this year, it was used for a total of 19 days: 15 days for family work, three days for matters relating to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and TV licensing, and one for tribunal services. That means that for 110 days—around 22 weeks—the advocates’ room was not being used for legal proceedings. In fact, the space is used so infrequently that it is not even registered or signposted.
As a result of that error, the Tribunals Service has made a serious miscalculation about court usage. It says that it is used to 51% of its capacity. I believe that after correcting this mistake, that court usage goes up to 68%, which would make it hugely efficient.
Things get worse, however. Burton court has suffered severe prejudice through the dates used to calculate usage figures. The statistics that the Ministry of Justice has used for its proposal were gathered between 1 April 2014—note the date: I believe that this must be some sort of April fool’s joke—and 31 March 2015. As the Minister knows, between October and December 2014, Burton’s police cells were undergoing refurbishment, meaning that much of the court’s normal custodial work was transferred to Cannock. Obviously, that has resulted in Burton’s usage figures being artificially depressed. When we put those things together, we see that the court is not operating at 51% capacity but at 68%—at least, I suggest.
Let us look at how Burton operates compared with other courts. We have heard that that is important. I raised the issue of the missing courtroom four with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, who helpfully wrote back to say:
“You raise a concern regarding the size of Courtroom 4 and its inclusion…when calculating the utilisation of Burton Magistrates’ Court. Courtroom 4 has been used for hearings previously and continues to be available for suitable cases should it be required. Workload at Burton Magistrates’ Court is low overall, meaning that Courtroom 4 as the smaller of the four rooms is rarely used.”
As we have demonstrated, that is simply not the case, and I urge the Minister to take her staff who compiled this report into a darkened room and give them a talking to, because the facts do not fit what is being suggested.
Of course, utilisation figures are just one measure of how well a court is performing. To get a complete picture, it is necessary to compare such things as the time it takes to complete a case after it has been listed or the percentage of trials that prove ineffective. Fortunately, the Tribunals Service is already in possession of such data, which are published regularly as judicial oversight of magistrates court performance reports.
Those reports provide data on 10 different performance measures at the national, cluster and local justice area level, thereby offering a comprehensive insight into how well one region is doing. When we examine those data, we find that Burton magistrates court—being the only magistrates court in south-east Staffordshire, and that is, of course, important—ranks above the national average in seven out of 10 of the Tribunals Service’s measures. It is also above average in six out of 10 measures when compared with the Staffordshire and West Mercia cluster, which is, in itself, one of the best clusters in the country.
The primary purpose of any court is to provide justice swiftly and effectively. According to the statistics that I have outlined, Burton magistrates court does that more successfully than the vast majority of courts in England and Wales. Closing Burton magistrates court would therefore deprive the local area and the tribunals service itself of an incredibly valuable community asset.
Let us consider Burton magistrates court’s facilities. In his response to me on 15 September, the Minister said:
“I must highlight that the consultation proposal for Burton Magistrates’ Court is not based solely on the usage of the court. The court has no separate facilities for defence witnesses and there are a number of access issues for people with disabilities.”
Okay, so let us judge it on the basis of the information that the Minister has been given. First, take the issue of access. I have been to Burton magistrates court and I have spoken to the staff there. I have spoken to the magistrates and the solicitors who work there, and I have even spoken to disability groups in Burton. None of them believes that Burton magistrates court has any access issues whatever. All three courtrooms are entirely disability-friendly, including in the public areas. The proposal is simply wrong. There is even a lift in the court. The only exception is the witness box in court one, but that has never presented any issue in the past. Witnesses are permitted to give evidence under oath from anywhere in the courtroom, meaning that the problem does not exist. This is a straw man put up by the Department, desperately trying to defend its proposal to close the court, but it does not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.
Let us look at the lack of separate waiting facilities for defence witnesses. It is absolutely true that Burton does not, at the moment, have separate waiting facilities for defence witnesses. However, that could easily be resolved by converting the advocates’ room, or courtroom four—or the broom cupboard, as I like to call it—to make it available for that purpose. In fact, the advocates’ room is ideally situated for that purpose, as its location is away from the main body of the court and would ensure that defence witnesses felt very safe.
The other point that has been made in defence of the closure proposal is the lack of cell accommodation. Although it is true that Burton court does not have its own cell accommodation, it does have access to the state-of-the-art cells in the police station next door. Those cells are directly linked to Burton magistrates court through an underground tunnel, which emerges straight into the high-security dock in court one. Cell accommodation has been unavailable only twice in the past 15 years. The proposal is right to say that during the last closure for refurbishment the custodial work was moved to Cannock, but it is wrong in saying that that was a success. In fact, the move caused serious problems for court users, especially victims, witnesses and advocates, in terms of both unacceptable travel times, as we have heard, and expense.
The court and the police station have worked together for a very long time. Indeed, the tunnel between the courtroom and the police station allows anyone giving evidence—witnesses and the accused—to appear right in the dock. It is safe, it is secure and it works incredibly well. In fact, the police have such a good relationship with the court’s security service, GEOAmey, that they have granted GEOAmey a permanent work station within their facility. There is no reason why that should not continue.
If we look the facilities that Burton offers compared with those that the Ministry is claiming to keep open, they not only stand up to scrutiny, but they are better, safer and more fit for purpose. It is not possible to argue that Burton court should close due to inadequate facilities, when the court that is proposed to replace it has much worse facilities. The truth is that Burton court’s facilities are of a very high standard and do not in any way impede access to justice. That is what we are here for: to ensure that our constituents have access to justice.
A final implication relates to the family court. We recognise that it deals with people who are incredibly vulnerable. No other facilities in south-east Staffordshire could deal with family court work. It would be forced to go to Stoke and the facilities there are also not fit for purpose.
I have spoken for a long time and I am grateful, Sir David, for your leniency. I think you can understand that my constituents want me to defend Burton court and their right to justice. We have established the facts of the case, which are that Burton court should stay open. Its facilities are right, it has served the people and it is good value for money. All I ask is that the Minister looks at the facts, and bases her judgement on them. I am sure that that will lead her to the same conclusion as me: that Burton court must stay open.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and Family Justice (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) on securing this important debate. I will ensure that his kind words about my colleague, the Minister for the Courts and Legal Aid, are passed on. He has asked me to emphasise again today that the consultation is genuine and that although it has now closed, no decision will be made until the responses to it have been carefully considered.
In the meantime, I very much welcome the opportunity to explore this important issue. I commend my hon. Friend on the diligent way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents in this matter. I understand many of his concerns about the proposal and the accuracy of the published document, and appreciate the hard work he has put into the matter. I know that he has corresponded with my ministerial colleagues and I assure him that where corrections are required, they will be made in the response document. We will of course consider all the points he has made today, alongside those he has already made, and all the other responses we have received, when we make a decision about the future of the court.
I would like to address directly a couple of issues, including the accuracy of the consultation document regarding courtroom four’s size and suitability for hearings. The courtroom is of a modest size, but it is suitable for a variety of judicial work and has been used for hearings in the past year. That it has not been used more often is more a reflection of the low workload at Burton magistrates court. Although courtroom three is larger than courtroom four, it is also used irregularly due to the low workload.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of access to justice for his constituents with particular reference to travel time. I agree that this is really important, but we would expect Burton court users’ cases to be heard at Derby, a journey time of 45 minutes by bus. However, we will analyse any information we receive relating to travel times in the consultation and ensure that the response reflects that analysis.
Andrew Griffiths
I am sorry that the Minister’s officials are again giving her the wrong information. Her proposal says that my cases will go three ways: to Cannock, to Newcastle-under-Lyme and to Derby. Two thirds of cases will not go to Derby.
Caroline Dinenage
I am sure that everything my hon. Friend says will be taken into consideration. We know that the world outside the courts is changing rapidly. We expect to be able to transact all our business online, quickly and efficiently, and at a time that suits. Justice must be accessible, with court users able to transact their court business efficiently at a time that suits them. We have a great opportunity to invest in our courts and to modernise them to meet the challenges of present and future requirements of court users and improve delivery.
In the consultation, we asked for suggestions about providing court services from an alternative local building and all those will be fully evaluated. We also want to change the way in which the public can access the courts. That does not have to take place by attending a conventional court building so we are exploring whether there are opportunities to hold hearings in local buildings. In addition, we have welcomed views on whether to establish video conferencing facilities and whether that would improve access to justice for victims, witnesses and court users. The proposals on the court estate in England and Wales must also be considered in the wider context of our ambitious plans to transform the way in which courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public.
As the Justice Secretary has said, reform of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient service. Many people encounter our justice system when they are at their most vulnerable, be they victim or witness. We must make better use of technology to provide easier access and a more responsive system with swifter processes and a more proportionate service.
As we know, front-line staff in the courts work very hard to provide a high quality service, but they often work against a backdrop of poor infrastructure and IT systems that are often inefficient, disjointed and based on old technology. We must respect the traditions of our court system, but recognise that court attendance is time consuming and often an inefficient process for everyone involved. A more proportionate approach to court attendance would eliminate wasted time and enhance confidence in the administration of justice. We have a duty to offer more convenient and less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system, which is what we intend to do while maintaining the authority of the court for serious cases.
We need to invest to deliver those improvements and we will do so with care to ensure that taxpayers are funding investment in a sustainable and efficient system. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the Government are facing tough decisions about how we spend limited public funds and we do not shy away from making these tough decisions, but the programme of reform on which the courts and tribunals are embarking is a remarkable opportunity to transform essential public services. It will result in delivery of quicker and fairer access to justice and a courts and tribunals system that better reflects the way the public access and use services today. It is important that we make the right decisions about investment and operate from a court estate that is sustainable and represents value for money.
As my hon. Friend said, the consultation has now closed and we will analyse the responses. He referred to the 2,000 signatures that have been collected in the local area and they will be taken into consideration. The Minister for the Courts and Legal Aid and the Lord Chancellor will consider all the difficult decisions about whether a court should close. As they do so, they will consider all the responses and the points that my hon. Friend has made in the debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the proposed closure of Burton Magistrates’ Court.
Funeral Poverty
(9 years, 1 month 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
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funeral poverty.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir David. Whenever I come to this Chamber, you seem to be in the Chair, so it is nice to see the tradition maintained. It is also a pleasure to speak on this issue, which perhaps does not always get the attention that it deserves. Everyone will die at some point, unfortunately. It is an issue that we do not discuss often as a community or even within families, so it is worth bringing it to the Chamber today.
I am grateful to the many industry bodies, charities and campaign groups that have helped in drawing together the information for the debate. It has become clear in recent weeks that this is an issue of growing public interest and it is worth dwelling on why that might be. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) had her ten-minute rule Bill just before the election. We have seen the National Association of Funeral Directors campaigning on this issue and Quaker Social Action innovating in how it is seeking to drive down the cost of funerals. I have discussed the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on numerous occasions over the past five years and with Steve Webb, my hon. Friend the Minister’s predecessor in the Department. We have also seen Royal London and SunLife—two of the major insurers—issuing regular reports over the past decade indicating the extent to which funeral costs have gone up over the years.
I never thought that I would find myself saying this, but the Scottish National party may have shown us the way forward: just last Friday it published the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill, which looks at many of these issues. Most interestingly of all, it includes a commitment to review funeral poverty in Scotland. I welcome that and would welcome a commitment from the Minister to look carefully at that Bill—the funeral poverty issues in particular—to see whether anything can be learned. Some of the issues would be a Ministry of Justice responsibility here in England.
When I do one of these debates, I meet all the relevant bodies, read all the relevant reports and gather far more information than I can possibly deploy in the hour at my disposal—not that I have the full hour at my disposal. I will do my best to enable everyone to speak. I recognise that the hour at the end of the day is a new format for this Chamber and I hope that we can accommodate everyone.
It is worth being quite specific. There is a full debate to be had about the rising cost of funerals, but that is not the topic of my debate today. I want to focus specifically on that group of people for whom the cost of a funeral is over and above what they can afford. Many of the trends, I agree, do overlap. Scarcity of burial space drives up costs, for example, but I want to focus in particular on those in financial need.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in places such as Redditch county, funeral poverty is a massive problem for people? Having lost both my parents, I know that the stress of needing to organise a funeral is bad enough without having to worry about the cost of it.
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is right. None of us really wants to think about what we will do when the reality presents itself to us and we have a funeral to organise. Not only do we have to process the emotions that we inevitably feel, but there is an entire series of practical steps that have to be gone through that we are probably not best placed to go through at that time. We are not acting as the informed consumer that we might be if we were going down the supermarket to make a normal purchase. This cannot be the normal purchase that we might like it to be.
The experience can be overwhelming at times and many people require a degree of practical help in trying to navigate the process. For some, yes, the need to organise might be a welcome distraction from the process of grieving, but I do not think it can ever be accepted that these things will just happen of their own accord. As Marie Curie points out, there can be quite an adverse consequence for the grieving process if the result is not the right one in the end. Above all else, the cost of a funeral can be a massive shock to the budgets of families who perhaps do not start off with a significant amount of resilience in the first place.
The fact that I organised today’s debate seems to have provoked a number of insurance companies into rushing out annual reports a few weeks early. Both Royal London and SunLife had to get a move on down the printers, and Royal London’s report, which came out on 5 October, showed once again that funeral costs continue to rise. It now estimates that about one in 10 people are struggling to meet the cost of a funeral. The other provider, SunLife, in its “Cost of Dying” report, which came out even more recently—this weekend—found that the cost of a basic funeral had risen to £3,693, with a further £2,000 spent on discretionary items such as extra limousines, venue hire and catering. That is a sizeable sum, which, if not met out of the deceased’s estate, will place a substantial burden on the family if they have few savings yet need to find the money for a deposit even to start the process. No wonder research shows that credit cards and funerals are two of the items that we most commonly find together.
For those whose financial resilience is low to begin with, the phenomenon of funeral poverty almost has a sad inevitability about it. It leaves people facing a scale of debt and a suddenness that they simply cannot be expected to prepare for, so I think that it is right and proper that we look today in particular at what the Government’s tools are for trying to deal with the problem.
The main one is the social fund funeral payment, which has been in existence since 1988. It combines an uncapped commitment to “necessary” costs such as burial and cremation fees, along with a capped amount of £700 to cover such items as the coffin, the memorial and funeral directors’ fee. With an average award of £1,347, it undoubtedly makes an important contribution to the costs of a funeral for those who receive a qualifying benefit and where no other family member can meet the bill.
It should be made clear that the benefit is designed not to pay the full amount of the funeral costs, but to make a contribution. That is the policy objective. It is worth assessing whether the benefit functions as it should against that policy objective. I am sure that we could all express views on whether it should achieve other objectives, and there might well be a debate to be had on that matter, but I want to assess the benefit against that particular objective to start with.
It is worth noting that within the average figures, there is a broad discrepancy. The discrepancy between the cost of a burial versus a cremation leads to some perverse outcomes. The amount that an individual gets will depend on which they opt for and where they are in the country. There is no inherent, internal logic in the amount that an individual will get when they are faced with meeting these bills.
The capping of additional costs at £700 has been controversial for quite a while. I first got involved with this topic when the NAFD came to see me about it. I understand why it is a complex issue. Some suggest that over time the value of the £700 has been eroded. Mathematically, that cannot be argued against. Inflation means that if we were paying that £700 now, based on the amount that it started out at when capping first took place in 2003, it would be slightly over £1,000. Perhaps the best way to think about this is not to argue whether it is too high or too low, but to look at the costs that it is designed to meet.
We have a very poor understanding of where the money from the social fund funeral payment is actually going. We understand where the capped amount—the £700—goes. It does not meet all the additional costs, many of which are discretionary and at the choice of the consumer, but the Government—rightly, in my view—seek to meet all the necessary costs, which relate to the legal requirement regarding the disposal of someone’s remains. It is right and proper that the Government should meet all those costs, and they recognise that. There can be no model in which all the necessary costs are not met.
However, despite five years of trying to achieve that—without any luck—it is very hard to track through the Department for Work and Pensions where those necessary costs are going. Different local authorities charge different fees for cremation and burial. There is no consistency across the country. There are some perverse factors, such as the growth of private crematoriums driving up local authority crematorium costs as well. I have asked on a number of occasions, as other hon. Members have, for more information on what the money is going on. It makes it very difficult, I think, for both the Department and interested observers to make an accurate assessment of whether the benefit is performing adequately and reaching its policy objective. We need to understand what the cost drivers are, and it is important that the Government try to work out what more they can do to improve the data collection. I would be interested to know what steps the Minister thinks that he can take to improve the data collection to allow that analysis to take place.
There are various anecdotal reports that not every council runs its crematoria on a cost-recovery basis. If some are seeking to cross-subsidise, that ought to be at least transparent to the Government; that might help them to understand how the overall amount spent remains roughly the same at some £46 million each succeeding year, while the proportion spent on necessary costs continues to fluctuate. The Government need a better understanding of what is going on.
Many have argued that a relatively straightforward step in the right direction would be to index-link the capped payment—the £700—to inflation. When I put that to the Minister’s predecessor, Mr Webb, he replied:
“One risk of index-linking these payments is that prices would rise and recipients would be no better off”.
I have interrogated that statement from as many logical positions as I possibly can, and I still cannot make head or tail of it. I do not think it relates to the reality faced by funeral directors or consumers. Although I recognise that there is a need for much greater transparency on the part of funeral directors when it comes to offering itemised estimates without having been asked to do so, to my mind a £700 cap leads to some perverse outcomes. Increasing numbers of funeral directors carry a substantial amount of debt because they have to act as debt managers, and that leads some of the larger chains to turn people away when it becomes clear that they may require some social fund payments to pay for the funeral.
I ask the Government once again to look at index-linking—not merely as a spending commitment, but to help them better understand the cost drivers from local Government and to use whatever savings they achieve to pay for the index-linking that would allow funeral directors to cover more of their costs. That would also give the Government an opportunity to look at saying to funeral directors, “Right. We have index-linked, so now let us look at how the industry can improve its delivery of services and act in consumers’ interests to get a fair outcome.”
I ask the Government to consider balancing the need to fund necessary costs with the need to ensure that those costs are constrained on the part of local councils—there can be no blank cheques—and that additional costs are not squeezed merely to ensure the funding of necessary costs, of which we do not have a full and proper understanding. There is a danger that, as debate on and public interest in the subject grow, we may get some perverse demands for change that will not lead to any improvement in the experience of the bereaved. We need robust, coherent data to judge the right way forward, and at the moment we do not have that information. Many observers in the sector strongly believe that to be true.
We also need to look at how the benefit works. From my time on the Work and Pensions Committee, I know that it is important to be quite forensic on each individual benefit. What is its policy objective? Is it delivering that objective? How is it being managed? With some 51,000 applications for the social fund funeral payment, some 41% of which were rejected, I wonder what scope there is to improve the pre-eligibility scrutiny of those applications, because 41% is quite a large number. I suspect that many will be quite transparently not eligible at an early stage.
There have been numerous meetings about how to improve the process, but we still seem to get roughly the same number of rejections. I would welcome the Minister’s view on what more could be done to improve that. The bereaved should not be left disappointed by going through the process of arranging the funeral, only to be rejected later. That can be quite devastating, and it causes many of the financial problems that I have mentioned. In turn, it leaves the funeral directors out of pocket, and they have to chase the debt.
Will the Minister address the situation of people who are awaiting a decision on a qualifying benefit? They are trapped in two DWP holding circles: a decision on their own benefit, which will have consequences for their entitlement to the social fund funeral payment. The form is very complex. Virtually every Work and Pensions Committee report that I have been involved with asks the Department to improve the layout of the form and to subject it to the test of the behavioural insights team. No DWP form can ever not be improved, and I think that this particular form would defeat even me if I tried to fill it in.
The timeliness of decision making matters. The Department’s performance on that is quite good; its target is 16 days, and it seems to fluctuate between 17 and 18 days, so it is not that far off—I can think of many other examples of where it is nowhere near its targets. Although that represents quite good performance, the target of 16 days is actually three days longer than the average time between a death and a funeral. Timeliness of decision making is still an issue, and it might be improved by a pre-application eligibility procedure, if such a thing could be introduced.
I would welcome the opportunity for relatives to know before they commission a funeral the scale of resources that they are likely to have at their disposal. Some relatives may feel that the measure of their grief and loss can somehow be proportionate to the complexity of the funeral that they commission, and although I understand why that is the case, it would be helpful for people to have a clear understanding from funeral directors at a very early stage about what the items on the bill will cost. It would help for them to know how much will be spent on each element and which elements were required, which were discretionary and which were optional. At the moment, people are not acting as informed consumers. Affordability works both ways, because if a funeral director offers a more affordable plan to the customer, they are more likely to get their money in the end. Both parties can benefit from that, and it would alleviate the levels of debt.
One interesting element of the debate is budgeting loans. Steve Webb participated in a debate on this subject a few years ago, in which he talked about budgeting loans being a solution to much of the problem. Despite repeated efforts by the NAFD to get more information out of the Department through freedom of information requests, no one seems to have evidence of any budgeting loan being taken out for the purpose of paying for a funeral. I would be interested to know whether there is any evidence that that is actually happening, because we do not have any data on it.
I will try to wrap up rapidly, because I am running out of time. I have been struck by the calls for regulation of the industry. I recognise that it is tempting to say that there should be a much greater state role, but I do not think that we have exhausted the good will of the industry. Quaker Social Action runs its fair funerals pledge, and many funeral directors are signing up to it, particularly from the younger end of the industry—the insurgents. That disruptive influence on the industry, focusing on what the consumers actually need, can only be a good thing. I am not entirely clear that the industry needs to be castigated. I know many of my local funeral directors, and they are compassionate, caring people who want to do the best on behalf of their community. I am sure that that is true in all our constituencies.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that no one goes into the process with a clear understanding of what costs they should reasonably expect. No one knows what a cheap funeral looks like versus an expensive funeral; one is merely presented with a bill at the end. It is difficult to understand how the component parts of that bill have been assembled, and, emotionally, one is probably not in a position to interrogate it. That can make it difficult to be an informed consumer, and it suggests to me that the market is not fully formed. It is hard to regulate a market that is not acting like one, and in which consumers are not making informed decisions at the point of purchase.
I support Quaker Social Action’s call for some sort of non-governmental third-party ombudsman role. When Steve Webb discussed the matter a few years ago, he talked about “Tell us once” being a possible mechanism for achieving that, but I do not think that it has lived up to its expectations in that regard. It has done a good job of reducing some of the bureaucracy, but it is not acting as a signpost to the best advice on how to navigate this complicated process. I would welcome the Government’s looking at signposting people to groups such as Quaker Social Action, and considering whether such a group could perform an ombudsman role. Yes, that would need to be funded—advice always needs to be funded—but I suspect that sufficient savings could be made in the administration of the benefit to fund Quaker Social Action to play that role.
Many would argue for some linkage between the social fund funeral payment and a defined “simple” funeral, and that suggestion perhaps causes the greatest concern. It is very hard culturally to define what a simple funeral would look like. Quaker Social Action has been cautious not to require those funeral directors signing its fair funeral pledge to guarantee to provide a simple funeral. Instead, it says that the funeral director should clearly advertise their cheapest available funeral.
We need to be careful not to go down the route of the state defining what type of funeral it is prepared to pay for. A lot of cultural elements circle around how we decide what is appropriate for our loved one. It is difficult to try to define what that simple funeral ought to look like.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Gentleman; I appreciate that I will be speaking in a second. I have spoken to a lot of funeral directors who have said that they already offer a simple funeral. That was something that I proposed in my Bill, and the industry was split down the middle—some were for it and some were against it. I just wanted to clarify the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Paul Maynard
I suspect that we are closer to agreement than the hon. Lady might realise. I know what a simple funeral would look like and I know what its pricing structure would be; I just get a little nervous about tying the social fund funeral payment to that precise model. There may be cultural or religious reasons why people need optional extras.
In summary—if I have left any time for the Minister and anybody else—I would welcome a bit more information on how we can get the basic data to make the right decision about whether this benefit is delivering on its policy intent. I think it can, I hope it will and I look forward to hearing what everybody else has to say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. The wind-ups will start at 10 minutes past 5. I want to include everyone, but I am afraid that colleagues will have to make very short speeches or interventions. With the leave of the House, Mrs Lewell-Buck will be making her speech while seated as she is temporarily incapacitated.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David; I thank you for allowing me to sit through the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing the debate. Funeral debt affects a growing number of people, but the private nature of grief and the social pressure to provide a decent send-off means that those people do not always have a voice. One of the things that we should always do in this place is speak up for the voiceless so the hon. Gentleman has done those people a great service by calling this debate today.
Perhaps like other hon. Members, the issue first came to my attention through a constituent who had got into serious debt paying for their brother’s funeral. At the time, I assumed that such cases were relatively rare but, sadly, that is not the case. More than 100,000 people are living with funeral debt, while others struggle to meet the costs, end up selling their possessions, or turn to friends or family to cover the cost. These debts are significant. Royal London’s national funeral cost index shows that the average debt is £1,318.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend know that since 2004 there has been an 80% increase in the price of funerals, but wages and benefits have increased only fractionally in line with inflation—if not, they are struggling to keep up with inflation? The average social fund funeral payment was £1,225, which means that there is a huge gap in what is affordable. Would she congratulate Quaker Social Action on its excellent work in this regard?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I would definitely like to thank Quaker Social Action, which I have done a lot of work with over the past 12 months. I am aware of some of the quite startling stats about this growing problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. I really do not think it is going to go away; it is going to get worse. Worryingly, as she said, the cost of a funeral service continues to rise well above the rate of inflation and the average debt is rising.
Losing a loved one, as most of us will sadly know, is one of the most difficult experiences we face in our lives. It shakes us and changes our world forever. In the middle of that personal turmoil, the last thing that people need is money worries. People will always feel a strong duty to do right by others when they depart, which makes it especially painful for those who are not able to provide what they see as a fitting service for their loved ones. That is why we need to have a really serious conversation about funeral affordability.
Hon. Members may be aware that in the previous Parliament I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill. The aim of my Funeral Services Bill was to approach some of the issues around funeral affordability. At the centre of the Bill was a call for the Government to carry out an overarching review of funeral affordability. When researching the issue, it quickly became clear how many factors affect the price of a funeral and how many Departments have a stake in it. Making funerals more affordable is not simple and requires co-operation between the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Ministry of Justice; only a cross-departmental approach can work. I hope that the Minister can give us a commitment that the Government will begin to look strategically at funeral poverty.
I am aware that there is not enough time to cover everything, so I will focus on one thing that should be reformed urgently: the way in which social fund payments operate. Funeral payments give people much-needed support, but the system has some major flaws. A funeral payment covers all of an applicant’s necessary costs plus up to £700 of other costs. That might sound reasonable enough, but, in fact, those other costs include things such as funeral directors’ fees and ministers’ fees—things that we can agree most applicants would consider necessary. The £700 cap was set in 2003 and has not kept pace with the rising cost of funerals, so funeral payment awards are increasingly inadequate. The average award is just over £1,300 at a time when the average funeral costs £3,700. If the cap on other costs had risen with inflation, it would stand at just under £1,000 today. As we have heard, funeral costs rise even faster than inflation. Although I appreciate the comment by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys that the social fund is a contribution, the reality is that if we want funeral payments to be fit for purpose, that cap needs to rise.
The other issue is the way applications are administered. At the moment, the DWP requires an invoice from the funeral organiser before it can process a claim, which means that people have to commit to a service before they know the value of the funeral payment they will receive. Inevitably, that means that some people commit to a funeral service they cannot afford and end up in severe debt. The process is completely backwards. The DWP urgently needs to look at how it can give applicants a clearer idea of the support they will receive, which will help people to make a more informed decision about the kind of service that is right for them.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my support for Quaker Social Action and the work it has done on the matter. My hon. Friend is making a point about the people’s ability to plan funerals. Does she agree that we have to be very sensitive to communities when the speed at which someone is buried comes into play in being able to plan and cost accordingly, and to some of the risks that creates for those communities?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
My hon. Friend is correct; this does not only affect people who have the time to plan a funeral, which is short in itself. Some communities cannot plan—full stop—so that debt will be incurred by everybody across the board.
The decisions by the DWP are far too slow. Most funeral services, as we have said, are decided very quickly after a person’s death, but the average claim can take up to three weeks to process, which means that most people only find out whether they are entitled to support long after committing to costs. My Bill, among other things, called on the DWP to introduce an eligibility check to help applicants understand whether they are likely to receive support before they make any commitments to funeral costs. I hope that the Minister can update hon. Members on social fund funeral payments, and accept what his predecessors would not—that there are serious flaws in the current system. I would like him to tell us what he will do to improve the process.
When I introduced my Bill last year, I hoped to start a national conversation about funeral affordability. The Government and the wider public have become increasingly aware of the issue. This debate is a welcome continuation of that conversation, but it is about time that some of that talk is turned into action. I hope the Minister will tell us about some of that action today.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on her speech and on her work on this issue. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who very effectively set out the problem that we face. He is a regular attender of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement, and this issue sits regularly on our agenda.
The existing system is not working, the £700 grant is inadequate and only 53% of those applying for a grant are successful. The consequence is that many people are getting into substantial debt. Funeral costs are often unplanned expenditure, and people mostly put it on their credit card. They may go to a mainstream lender, but in some instances they are forced to use backstreet lenders or build up debt elsewhere by borrowing to pay for goods. In some instances, people incur a debt with the funeral director. Of course, one of the funeral director’s roles is to offer a range of prices to families so that they can select a funeral that is appropriate and right for them. Cost is a factor, and the National Association of Funeral Directors has a strict code of practice for adapting funerals to people’s needs and constraints. It is not in a funeral director’s interests to sell a funeral that a family is unable to afford, but funerals are a sensitive time for families and it is not always possible for a funeral director to gather full information about a family’s circumstances and ability to pay. When the bill is finally received by a family, it often comes as a shock. Some funeral directors have put in place their own payment plan to enable bills to be settled over a lengthy period of time, which, in certain instances, leads to debts that the funeral director has simply not been able to recover. The impact on the funeral director, and on the possible costs of other funerals, should be borne in mind.
It is entirely right that the social fund exists, but it needs to be considered. I will take a short moment or two to mention the uncertain nature of the bills that families face. We should have a broader discussion and more openness about the cost of funerals, and greater thought should be given to the options available to people at a much earlier stage in their life. We speak a great deal about planning for people’s old age, and we know that the earlier people start to make such provision, the better. Perhaps people should start thinking about the time that comes post-old age. Instead of funerals being purchased in a very short space of time, perhaps they could build up and plan their funeral for some time.
When I looked into this subject, I was shocked to discover that many schemes are available, but they are not widely promoted, which might be because such promotion is inappropriate. I visited the website of a large national funeral director and discovered that for someone of my age—I was born on 16 January 1957— a basic funeral would involve expenditure of £27.75 a month. It may be that, in the same way as pension provision, if people gave some thought to their funeral at an earlier stage, a big, unexpected bill might be avoided.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some pre-paid funeral plans are not protected? My constituent thought they were protected. Their father had died, and they thought, “Fine, there is a pre-paid plan,” but the funeral director had gone out of business and their money had gone. There needs to be protection.
Mark Pawsey
The hon. Lady draws attention to the need for some form of regulation in the management of such plans. I am suggesting that we consider greater promotion to raise awareness of such plans so that families avoid receiving a big bill at what is always a very difficult time. This is an important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys deserves credit for securing this debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I understand that there are five minutes left, Sir David. If that is correct, I will divide them with the hon. Member who follows me.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
There are two more speakers, and the winding-up speeches start at 5.10 pm.
Jim Shannon
I will take two and a half minutes. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for securing this debate. I am conscious that, at a time when people have been forced to tighten their purse strings, funeral poverty has risen sharply. Unfortunately, as with other things, wages have not increased enough, which means that the poorest in society are often faced with the very real prospect of not being able to afford to bury their loved ones.
A gentleman came to my constituency office last week regarding a funeral grant. He had lost his brother a few months previously, and the brothers who were left had borrowed money from here and there to pay the funeral costs. They applied for a funeral grant and were turned down despite three of them being in receipt of benefits. The brother who paid the majority of the costs was in employment, and for that reason, despite the fact that one brother was on the minimum wage and borrowed money to pay the costs, the brothers were ineligible for the grant. That is a common problem, and it becomes worse for staff on casual or zero-hours contracts. Such people cannot receive the financial assistance they need because they are classed as working, regardless of whether or not their income is regular.
Is it not time to have a means test for those who apply for a funeral grant? The gentleman who came to my constituency office was left with a burden. He is on the minimum wage, which means that he was not able to take the full cost himself. Prices have risen by 3.9% in the last year alone, which is £140 in real money. One in 10 people struggle to pay for a funeral, to the tune of £1,318. Over the past five years, the price of cremations has gone up by almost a third from £470 to £640. I welcome the work of the charities and organisations, but will the Minister indicate what help we can give? Will the rules be changed to include a means test? We need to help the most vulnerable in our society, and we need to ensure that people on zero-hours contracts, casual contracts or the minimum wage can get some financial assistance.
I commend the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on her hard work. I am impressed by her contribution, and I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) on behalf of the Scottish National party because the Scottish Parliament has shown us the best way forward.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I will be brief, given the impending time limit. I support this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for putting across the arguments so thoughtfully. I also thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for raising this issue in the national consciousness in the way it deserves.
I will make a couple of brief points. The first is obvious, but it deserves to be said again that we have a cultural problem in this country, even more so than in many other countries, because we do not talk about death and, as a result, do not plan for it. That is part of the reason for the problems that we all get into. Death is a certainty, yet we do not talk about it and too few of us plan for it, even those who have the income to do so if they only thought about it at an earlier time.
As we have heard, it is possible to plan ahead and take a fixed-cost, pre-need funeral plan. I have also had constituents whose funeral director had gone out of business and, as we have just heard, their family only discovered it at the point of death, which is an awful tragedy. I have had two constituents in that position. Such schemes are important and should be promoted by the Government and by funeral directors because, in their defence, they fix the cost at the point at which the scheme is taken out. As we have heard, the cost of a funeral has risen so much in recent years that, in all likelihood, a funeral will be significantly cheaper if a scheme is taken out several years in advance.
Lastly—I know that we need to move on—we must, without bashing funeral directors, make the point that the cost of a funeral has risen enormously in recent years, by seven times the rate of inflation. That is too much. Many funeral directors have quite high margins; some basic products, such as coffins, can be provided for as little as £60 or £100. I do not want people to be pushed into undignified funerals, but funeral directors could do more to reduce the cost of funerals and enable members of the public to have dignified funerals at a sensible price.
Members might not be aware that there is a growing trend in this country of DIY funerals. That has both good and bad sides, but we need to be aware of it, because hundreds of thousands are happening now: members of the public do a lot of the work themselves rather than going through funeral directors. They take control of the paperwork, arrange and even conduct the service and make transport arrangements. That is a difficult process, but we need to be aware of it. If we do not sort out the problem, we will see far more DIY funerals in years to come.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for holding this debate on such an important matter, as he clearly highlighted in his worthy contribution. I also thank all Members who have spoken. After a serious piece of slash-and-burn, let me say that recent reports have found that not only are many people unable to pay for the cost of a funeral, 47% of individuals are forced to take out high-interest credit card debt or short-term loans to cover the shortfall.
According to findings published in The Guardian on 20 October, jobcentre staff actively encourage individuals to take on debt in order to pay for funeral costs. The fact that they have done so when individuals have approached them at a time of desperation and emotional turmoil after the loss of a loved one is morally reprehensible and frankly unacceptable. Although the reports do not specify whether encouraging individuals to incur high-interest debt to cover the costs of a funeral is an official Department for Work and Pensions internal policy, I hope that this debate will encourage the DWP to tackle that emerging pattern, and I would appreciate a ministerial response on that particular concern.
According to the 2015 Citizens Advice Scotland report, “The cost of saying goodbye”, which has been mentioned by many Members who have spoken, North Lanarkshire council ranks in the top 40% of the most expensive councils for funeral costs in Scotland. According to Citizens Advice, the total cost of a funeral for people living in our constituency falls somewhere between £2,500 and £8,000. As more than half the households in Lanarkshire have an annual household income of less than £20,000, the cost of a funeral in our constituency can represent more than one third of household income for many.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is now eating into the time of his colleague who is about to speak.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for introducing this important debate, which has inspired uncharacteristic consensus around the Chamber. Everybody in this room agrees that there is a problem and that funeral poverty is a huge issue affecting every constituency and every part of the United Kingdom, a trend shown by the 80% rise in funeral costs over the past 10 years—or higher in some parts of the UK. In the past year, the cost of a funeral has risen by more than 7%. Household incomes are simply not keeping pace.
As many Members have said, at an already difficult and stressful time, families are being forced into credit card debt and unwise access to money. They do so in desperation, to cover funeral expenses. Everybody understands that when a loved one dies, we want to give them the dignity and respect of a fitting send-off. What families are left with at the end, as well as their grief, is debt anxiety, which does not allow people to grieve properly as they ought to be allowed to do. There is also wide disparity in pricing. People can find out that in another part of the country, the funeral might not have cost quite as much as they paid for it.
Far too many families on low incomes face the brutal reality that they simply cannot afford the sudden death of a loved one. Of course, there is the option of life insurance, but to people struggling to put food on the table for their family, it too often seems like an unnecessary luxury. In certain circumstances, local authorities step in to provide a public health funeral, but recent research shows that the demand for such funerals is rising and many local authorities are struggling to cope. Funeral plans have been mentioned, but we have evidence that some companies offer over-50s plans to provide for their funeral, which can lead people on low incomes to pay thousands upon thousands of pounds without their families ever recovering the full amount paid in, because they paid in more than the funeral costs.
It is unacceptable for a bereaved family coming to terms with the loss of a loved one to have to go through the turmoil of worrying how to afford a funeral. Many Members have spoken about Scotland. The power to deal with funeral payments is due to be devolved under the Scotland Bill. Currently, the social fund is the mechanism that can, where conditions are met, help individuals in such circumstances with certain one-off payments, but as we know, the social fund has become another victim of the Government’s austerity cuts, and more pressure is being placed on families. The fund has failed to keep pace with the true cost of funerals, leaving some families with substantial debts. To illustrate further, the social fund reported a 35% increase in the number of clients facing funeral debt in the year 2013-14.
Tribute has been rightly paid to the social fund in this debate, but the issues I have raised have led some groups to take a more direct approach. I hope that we can all pay tribute to the Quaker Social Action group which, along with a network of not-for-profit organisations, has established the Funeral Poverty Alliance, dedicated both to raising the profile of funeral poverty as a social justice issue requiring the attention of Government decision makers and to ensuring that the public and the funeral industry alike are aware of the options available and the wider challenges. Such developments further elucidate the seriousness of the issue of funeral poverty.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. Lady’s speech, but there are two more speakers waiting, and the debate finishes at half-past 5.
Patricia Gibson
I will wind up. I have not had time to say all that I wanted to say, but I shall end by saying that we know that many people in our country struggle to make ends meet. They can barely afford to live; now it would seem that they cannot afford to die either. We have spoken about the distress and the lack of dignity into which funeral poverty plunges families and the deceased. Let us hope that the Government are listening.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to appear opposite the Minister. We have crossed swords before, and I look forward to doing so again. I commend the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on raising such an important issue: the chance to hold a dignified funeral in our society. I also commend the speakers who have contributed to this debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who introduced a ten-minute rule Bill in the last Parliament and has campaigned tenaciously on the issue. I thank the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for his contribution, particularly for the way in which he spoke about debt; the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his words on funeral poverty; the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick); and the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), all of whom contributed significantly to the quality of this debate.
It was that famous Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas, who said:
“After the first death, there is no other.”
It illustrates that people always react to death very differently. Each funeral is different and unique, a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in her earlier intervention.
None the less, funerals serve common purposes. They are not only a celebration of a life lived; they offer symbolism, the public expression of farewell and the marking of loss. That is why it is absolutely right that support is available to bereaved families to provide dignified funerals and why the rise in funeral costs, described very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) in her intervention, is so worrying.
I impress on the Minister today the need for a strategic approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) made that point in her contribution. Central to that is the availability of information to inform a strategic approach. In a parliamentary answer on 29 June, the Minister stated that, of the 52,500 applications to the social fund for funeral payments, only 32,000 were approved. An explanation of why nearly 20,000 were rejected would be useful. It would also be useful if the Department for Work and Pensions published other specific data. What, for example, is the total number of people who cannot afford a low-cost funeral? What is the average cost of a funeral? How many bereaved families fall into debt? I could go further and say that it would be useful if the Minister committed today to seeking and consulting on a definition of funeral poverty that could be used in future.
The hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys spoke powerfully about budgeting loan applications in his contribution. Budgeting loans have been available since May 2012. An indication of the likely award would be useful, because ex post facto awards create an extra complication for the family at a time of bereavement. It would be useful, when looking at this policy area, if the Government distinguished between maternity and funeral expense applications in the statistics.
Those elements taken together would provide a more strategic approach. I urge the Minister today to turn his attention to this issue and focus on it. It is difficult to think of a more noble cause than providing people with a dignified funeral, regardless of their income.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I have enjoyed debating with him on previous occasions, and I thought that his suggestions and his decision to focus on a strategic approach were sensible and practical. It was a helpful contribution.
The debate was secured by my excellent colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), whose proactive, thoughtful and knowledgeable work in this area highlights what an important issue funeral poverty is. The debate has raised important questions today. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and her work on the ten-minute rule Bill. I am interested in her point about a national conversation, and I will come back to that. I will have to whizz through some of my points, but I will do my best to cover as much as I can in the limited time available.
Before I focus particularly on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, I want to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who both raised constructive ideas about overall costs and planning for costs in the future, that we will need to look carefully at those points. The question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has left the debate, is relatively easy for me to answer because the powers have already been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly; he will need to relay his questions there. In answer to the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), the powers will be devolved. I will take a particular interest in what new innovative ideas Scotland will try. If there are areas that work well, we will have to look closely at them. I wish them the best of luck. As policies are developed, my teams will continue to be supportive through sharing information on what we have learnt in the past.
Losing a loved one is one of the most difficult things that any of us will experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys is right to highlight the fact that, in addition to the significant emotional cost, dealing with a bereavement brings practical challenges. Although the Government have never taken responsibility for meeting the full cost of funeral arrangements, they provide support to help the most vulnerable people with funeral costs, and rightly so.
For people in receipt of universal credit, income-related benefits and tax credits, the social fund funeral expenses payments provide a significant contribution towards the cost of a simple, respectful, low-cost funeral. The scheme meets the full costs of a cremation or burial, including: the purchase of a grave; necessary burial or cremation fees; for cremations, the cost of any medical references or removal of active implanted medical devices, such as pacemakers; reasonable costs if the body has to be moved more than 50 miles; and the cost of a journey for the applicant to arrange or go to the funeral. A funeral payment is paid in about 7% of deaths in Great Britain.
In 2014-15, 32,000 funeral payments were awarded, worth about £44 million. Other costs, such as the coffin, church and funeral director fees, are limited to a maximum payment of £700. Members questioned whether that is the appropriate level. The majority of claims exceed the £700 limit, which is why in May 2012 we made interest-free social fund budgeting loans available for funeral costs, in addition to the funeral payment. The average budgeting loan award in 2014-15, for all purposes, was £413. Applicants can claim up to a maximum of £348 to £812, depending on their circumstances. Crucially, the introduction of budgeting loans is a vital part of removing the need for bereaved families to turn to high-cost lenders or credit cards, and removes the worry of meeting the funeral director’s bill. The National Association of Funeral Directors welcomed that move, and we need to promote it further.
I will try to answer as many points as I can in the remaining time. What steps can the Government take to improve Department for Work and Pensions data collection to help improve transparency? What figures on the use of budgeting loans for funerals can the Department share? The shadow Minister also raised that point. The Department collects and publishes, via the social fund annual report, comprehensive data on applicants, application and award volumes, expenditure and processing times. That allows the Department to monitor the operation of the scheme. Extra data beyond that could be collected, but we must consider the costs of doing so; the scheme costs about £2.6 million to administer for a £44 million benefit to the most vulnerable, so we must strike a balance. We will continue to look at the situation. The Department does not currently collect data on the take-up of budgeting loans for funeral costs, but we are exploring options to produce those data, so I welcome hon. Members’ comments.
Will the Government look again at index-linking the cap? It is a balancing act. It is important that the scheme does not influence or inflate the prices charged by the funeral industry for a simple funeral. I know my hon. Friend said that he struggled to get his head round that point. The cap for funeral director fees means that we can continue to ensure that the system remains both sustainable and fair to the taxpayer, and to help a large number of benefit recipients with funeral expenses. Although the £700 cap is not index-linked, there is no cap on the necessary costs category. On the points about inflation and funeral costs exceeding people’s rise in wages, the year-on-year rise in average payment amounts reflected that. The average award increased by 27% between 2006 and 2014-15. We will continue to work on that. I am conscious that I do not have much time left in the debate, so I will whizz through the points.
Ensuring better understanding of eligibility pre-application is probably the most important point. When I looked at the figures, I was concerned about the number of people applying, because of the time that it takes to go through the applications, and the people who do not get an award. I have asked whether there can be pre-eligibility checks. It is complex. We are looking at it, but at the moment, we do not feel confident that we can do it because we do not want to give somebody a 100% assurance and then not approve the application. There is a lot more work to do, but we have made progress. The proportion of successful applications has increased from 55% to 63% over the past five years.
Baroness Altmann is the Minister responsible for the policy. I will suggest a round table discussion with me and Baroness Altmann for hon. Members who have spoken today to explore the issue further, because it is crucial. We are committed to getting to 16 days. We have made progress and want to go further. The round table discussion will explore that as well.
The “tell us once” scheme was promoted in the coalition Government by the former Minister. We want to ensure that the service communicates well. If Members have specific examples of where it has not worked, please raise them.
The debate has been practical, proactive and constructive. I am conscious of the time constraints. I look forward to the round table discussion with those who are interested.
Written Statements
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
SSI
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
Further to my statement yesterday, I want to update the House on matters relating to SSI UK in Redcar.
Yesterday afternoon, the official receiver, in his capacity as liquidator of SSI UK Ltd, announced that he had received no viable offers for the coke ovens and blast furnace following discussions with potential buyers and would therefore begin closing these facilities.
This is hugely regrettable news, for SSI workers, their families and the local economy more broadly. It is also a reflection of the current difficulties facing the steel industry.
The Government remain absolutely focused on supporting those who find themselves out of work as a result of SSI’s liquidation and, through a package of up to £80 million, will continue to invest in them and the future of the Tees Valley economy.
Safety is a top priority and we will continue to ensure the official receiver has all the funding and support necessary to deliver a safe and orderly closure of these assets, working with the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency.
Finally, I would like place on record my own thanks to all of those who have helped to operate SSI’s facilities safely during this particularly difficult period and are continuing to do so.
[HCWS234]
Copycat Packaging
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
Today I am publishing a report on the enforcement provisions of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the “CPRs”). The report reviews the case for giving businesses a power to seek civil injunctions against “copycat packaging” (packaging designed to give a product the “look and feel” of a competing well-known brand).
The coalition Government agreed to review the case for granting businesses an injunctive power in relation to copycat packaging. BIS published a call for evidence seeking views on the proposal in April last year. I do not believe that the responses to the call for evidence have yet made the case for granting such civil injunction powers. I am announcing my decision that such a power should not be granted at this time.
The CPRs implement the unfair commercial practices directive (the “UCPD”). Copycat packaging potentially infringes provisions of the CPRs which prohibit traders from engaging in certain misleading actions including marketing a product in a way which creates confusion with a competitor’s products, distinguishing marks etc. Specified enforcers such as the Competition and Markets Authority and trading standards officers may enforce the CPRs by civil sanctions; there are also separate criminal sanctions. Although the UCPD allows for competing businesses to be given enforcement powers, that option was not exercised when the CPRs were made in 2008.
The report I am publishing today highlights the key issues and assesses the evidence on consumer detriment, competition and innovation.
The views expressed during the review were polarised. Certain brand owners argued that a lack of enforcement has resulted in consumers being misled and sales being diverted from brand owners, which they say reduces innovation and distorts competition. For retailers, these arguments illustrate that the case is driven not by consumer concerns but by commercial considerations; they consider granting the power could be anti-competitive while not benefiting consumers. Others noted the absence of consumer appetite for action, questioned the appropriateness of amending consumer law to facilitate business-to-business litigation, and doubted whether there is a material enforcement gap given existing powers to pursue action in respect of intellectual property infringement as well as passing off. Public enforcers do not currently consider there is consumer detriment arising from similar packaging (and if there were, that it would be mitigated by access to quick and easy redress i.e. exchange of products bought in error). They are also concerned that granting the power would damage the integrity of the enforcement system.
Brands are important to the UK economy and it is clear from the report that positive brand innovation is important to consumers. Following the review, I conclude there is little clear evidence that the use of similar packaging is causing any significant consumer detriment or hindering competition or innovation. There would be risks of unintended consequences if we changed the status quo, given the uncertainty around the evidence and the effects of the change, particularly in respect of the litigation that would result, and on enforcement. More generally, it would be difficult to reconcile granting this enforcement power with the Government’s deregulatory objectives.
I will be placing the report in the Libraries of both Houses. It will also be published online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consumer-protection-copycat-packaging-call-for-evidence
[HCWS232]
Consumer Protection (Secondary Ticketing)
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
Together with my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (John Whittingdale). I am today announcing that Professor Michael Waterson, Professor of Economics at the University of Warwick, has been appointed to chair an independent, consultative and evidence based review of consumer protection measures in the online ticket resale market. As required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, this independently chaired review on secondary ticketing will report its findings before 26 May 2016.
The terms of reference of the review and a call for evidence will be available on the gov.uk website and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Professor Waterson will consider the evidence and consult the broad spectrum of views on secondary ticketing, including from event organisers, primary ticket sellers, the online resale industry, enforcement authorities and consumers as both sellers and purchasers of tickets. I am sure that parliamentarians will be interested in the progress of the review.
[HCWS229]
Royal Mail
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
The Government have made a further sale of Royal Mail plc shares equivalent to 13% of the company, at a price of 455p pence per share. The Government will also take this final opportunity to reward Royal Mail’s eligible UK employees for their hard work and will gift a further 1% of the company to them.
These disposals will complete the disposal of all of the Government’s shareholding and the company is now for the first time wholly owned by a combination of employees and private investors.
Following independent financial advice, the Government decided to sell their remaining shareholding in Royal Mail. The shares were sold through an accelerated bookbuild which enabled Government to realise value for the taxpayer.
The disposal has raised £591.1 million which will be used to help pay down the national debt.
There is no policy need for Government to hold shares in Royal Mail as the universal postal service remains well protected by law and by Ofcom.
Royal Mail has demonstrated that it can thrive in the private sector. It now has the ability to access the funds it needs to ensure that it has a sustainable future and can adapt to the changes in the postal market.
We will be liaising with Royal Mail about the arrangements for the further gift of shares to Royal Mail’s UK employees and will inform the House of the details when these have been finalised.
Post Office Ltd, which operates the network of branches throughout the UK, remains wholly owned by Government and was separated from Royal Mail in April 2012. The relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail is a commercial one and a 10-year contract for the delivery of Royal Mail services through post offices was put in place in 2012.
[HCWS228]
September Environment Council
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I attended the EU Environment Council in Brussels on 18 September. Dr Aileen McLeod, Scottish Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform also attended.
Following the final formal agreement on the market stability reserve for the EU emissions trading system (which was an “A” item and therefore took place without the need for discussion), Ministers adopted reparations for the 21st session of the conference of the parties (COP 21) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC). These were agreed relatively swiftly following effective chairing from the Luxembourg presidency.
Ministers’ discussion focused on the issues of a long-term goal for global decarbonisation, a mechanism of five-yearly reviews for increasing the ambition of the agreement over time and climate finance. Some member states sought more ambitious language regarding these issues; however, others called for the conclusions to reflect domestic pressures on various delegations.
Following a complete table round, the presidency tabled a compromise text, which successfully balanced the concerns of all member states.
On adoption of the conclusions, the Commission tabled a declaration questioning the legal accuracy of a reference in the conclusions to the Council’s intention for member states to “jointly fulfil” the “at least 40%” target for emissions reductions and claiming that the Union has exclusive competence to undertake international obligations regarding climate mitigation. Some member state, including the UK, noted that they would table counter statements disagreeing with the Commission’s view of the legal situation, and have subsequently done so.
Over lunch, Ministers had a further discussion on tactics and preparations for COP21, including on communications.
[HCWS230]
Marine Licensing Recovery Policy
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Following a consultation exercise led by my Department in early 2015, the Government have made an amendment to the order delegating the exercise of certain marine licensing functions to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). These changes took effect on 1 October 2015.
The marine licensing system was introduced by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The exercise of most licensing functions in England and the offshore areas of Wales and Northern Ireland has been delegated by the Secretary of State to the MMO.
The purpose of the amending order is to strengthen democratic accountability on the most complex marine licence applications by providing an opportunity for locally accountable bodies (i.e. local planning authorities, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities) to seek an independent inquiry into certain marine licensing applications, with the final decision taken by Ministers directly accountable to Parliament. It will also enable Ministers to determine certain applications which involve activities of national significance but in relation to which there is no or insufficient planning policy guidance.
The order includes the criteria according to which the Secretary of State will consider whether to “recover” an application. In this context “recover” means that an application is to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The Government’s intention is that the policy will be highly selective and that only a very small proportion of marine licensing cases will be recovered.
The Secretary of State has issued statutory guidance to the MMO setting out how it should apply the policy, including providing indicative targets for each stage of the process. A copy of the guidance has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government will review the effectiveness of the policy and consult with stakeholder groups in October 2016.
[HCWS233]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Priti Patel)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council took place on 5 October 2015 in Luxembourg. Shan Morgan, the UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the European Union, represented the UK.
There was a policy debate on social governance. As part of the discussion, Vice-President Dombrovskis noted the success of the 2015 streamlining of the semester, but outlined that further work was needed to ensure better co-ordination, increased implementation of country specific recommendations (CSRs) and more ownership of the process. While some Ministers outlined their support for increased social benchmarking within the semester process, others, including the UK, stated that existing indicators in the semester were sufficient and raised concerns at any attempt to introduce common standards across all member states. The presidency concluded that there was a clear need for strengthened social governance that respected the treaties, and that it would bring forward council conclusions on that topic in the December EPSCO.
The Commission outlined its proposal for a Council recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market which all Ministers welcomed, highlighting actions undertaken at national level and reiterating the need for flexibility within the recommendation.
The presidency sought a general approach on the proposals for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on “improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures”. The UK had continued to block this and the presidency withdrew the item due to lack of progress in the negotiations, but committed to return to the issue at the December EPSCO.
The Council adopted the proposal for a council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of member states. The Chair of the Employment Committee outlined his hope that the revamped European semester would increase the use of the guidelines across member states.
Two council conclusions on adequate retirement incomes in the context of ageing societies, and a new agenda for health and safety at work to foster better working conditions, were both agreed without discussion.
The Council received information from the vice-president highlighting the actions the Commission was taking to strengthen social dialogue at EU level.
The presidency provided a short update on the informal meeting of “eurozone only EPSCO Ministers” that had preceded Council. He reported that they had discussed deepening the social dimension of the EMU, and that social policy needed to go hand in hand with economic policy with particular attention being paid to the social dimension of further eurozone integration.
Under any other business, the Commission presented figures on labour mobility. The Commission will present its labour mobility package at the December EPSCO. The presidency informed the Council about the conference on “Working conditions for tomorrow” which had taken place in Luxembourg in September.
[HCWS231]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Blunkett
Introduction: Lord Hayward
Oaths and Affirmations
European Union Referendum Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, I am privileged to open Second Reading of the EU Referendum Bill. The Bill will enable the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union before the end of 2017.
That commitment was rooted in our desire to give the British people the final say on an issue that goes to the heart of the governance of this country—an issue on which we have not directly consulted the people for more than 40 years. Since 1975, the United Kingdom has held referendums on devolution, as well as on our voting system, and in the long years since that vote in 1975, the UK’s relationship with the European Union has changed beyond all recognition. Whether noble Lords believe that this change has been for good or ill, or somewhere inbetween, it is right that the people now get to have their say.
Voters in other member states have had their opportunity. Their Governments have continued to ask for their consent. Indeed, in the past four decades, there have been more than 30 referendums on the EU right across Europe—Ireland alone has had eight—but not one has been held here, to give the British people their say, since 1975.
Of course, the referendum does not stand in isolation. This Government are committed to negotiating a new settlement for the United Kingdom in Europe: a settlement that ensures that the European Union is able to meet the challenges of the 21st century; above all, a settlement that addresses people’s concerns about the European project.
The negotiation will be difficult. There will be noise and possibly setbacks along the way, but the Government are confident that we can negotiate a new deal to put to the British people at the referendum.
I will now briefly set out the provisions of the Bill. The EU Referendum Bill does what it says on the tin. It will enable a robust and fair referendum to take place and, crucially, it will enable a referendum that is also seen to be fair.
The Bill is simply about the mechanics of the referendum, and is based on existing electoral law: particularly the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It sets the end of 2017 as the deadline to hold the referendum. It also rules out 5 May 2016 and 4 May 2017, when local and devolved elections are taking place across the country, as referendum dates. Otherwise, the Bill is silent on timing. As the Prime Minister has made clear, progress on the renegotiation will determine the date of the referendum. Ultimately, Parliament will decide whether to approve the date suggested by the Government. The date will be set by statutory instrument and subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Bill also sets out who is entitled to vote. This is a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe, so it is right that we use the Westminster franchise as our starting point for this referendum, which is of vital importance to this nation’s future. This means that British citizens in the UK, British citizens who have been abroad for less than 15 years and resident Commonwealth and Irish citizens will have a vote. Noble Lords will already be aware that we have added Members of this House to the franchise, in line with our normal practice for referendums.
I am aware of the strong feelings of some noble Lords about extending the franchise. I have heard calls for the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds. The Government remain firmly convinced that the Westminster franchise should remain the basis for this referendum. Including 16 and 17 year-olds would be a major constitutional change. We do not believe that this Bill, or any other Bill not directly addressing the franchise in general, should be the vehicle for doing this. Any such change should enjoy the support of Parliament and the country as a whole, after a full and proper debate.
I have also heard calls to extend the franchise to EU citizens resident in the UK. The Government recognise the strength of that feeling. Many EU citizens have made the UK their home and have made significant contributions to life in this country. No one would wish to deny that. However, this is a vote about the future of the United Kingdom in Europe so it is right that we use the Westminster franchise as the basis. Using a franchise that does not include other EU nationals is entirely consistent with the practice in other EU member states and with the EU treaties themselves. I suspect that many of the British public would view the inclusion of EU citizens as a crude attempt to fix the result.
In addition, many noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the franchise to British citizens resident overseas for more than 15 years. The Government will bring forward a Bill separately to amend the Westminster franchise to enable this, on which noble Lords will be able to engage in due course.
Finally, we have added British, Commonwealth and Irish citizens in Gibraltar. The Government believe it is right that Gibraltar should take part. Broadly speaking, the EU treaties apply to Gibraltar, and Gibraltar votes as part of the South West England region of the UK in European parliamentary elections.
The general election franchise is the right basis for such a crucial referendum, with the modest additions of Commonwealth and Irish citizens in Gibraltar and Members of this House. I am sure that noble Lords will have followed this debate in the House of Commons. Various proposals were made to expand the franchise, including lowering the voting age and adding EU citizens, each of which was firmly rejected. Nevertheless, as always, I look forward to listening to the views of noble Lords on these important issues, both inside and outside the Chamber, in the coming weeks.
I will say a little more about the addition of Gibraltar. The Government have remained in close contact with Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar throughout this process. I know that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and the Minister for Europe are all very grateful to the honourable Fabian Picardo MP and his Government for their engagement. Wherever possible, the Bill leaves it to the Gibraltar legislature to make provision to implement the referendum in Gibraltar. As a result, Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar intend to introduce their own referendum Bill in the Gibraltar Parliament, which will be complementary to the UK legislation. I know that Gibraltar’s inclusion in a referendum was an important point for Members of both Houses during consideration of the Private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who sponsored that Bill in difficult circumstances.
As well as the franchise, the Bill sets out the question to be asked at the referendum. The Electoral Commission carried out detailed research and consultation over the summer. It concluded that the question should be amended to ensure the maximum level of neutrality. The Government brought forward an amendment on Report in the Commons to reflect this recommendation. The question is now settled as: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”. Voters will be able to mark one of two options: “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union”. This departure from a yes/no answer is novel but the Government agree that the change will strengthen the perception that the neutrality of the referendum is beyond doubt.
The Bill also deals with electoral administration rules. Clause 3 and Schedule 3 to the Bill set out the overarching framework for the conduct of the EU referendum, and provide for the appointment of the chief counting officer, regional counting officers and counting officers for the administration of the poll. The framework follows that used for the conduct of the parliamentary voting system referendum in May 2011. The Government have also prepared draft regulations which will eventually be made under powers in the Bill and which will supplement the provisions in Clause 3 and Schedule 3. We published that draft by way of Written Ministerial Statement in this House and the other place in July and we consulted over the summer. We are now taking account of comments from the Electoral Commission and others to produce final draft regulations, which will be subject to Parliament’s approval before being made. This early action will give electoral administrators across the United Kingdom and Gibraltar the certainty they need to begin their preparations.
The Bill also provides for the crucial campaign rules, using the established and well understood framework set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. To that, we have added best practice from the alternative vote and Scottish independence referendums in a range of technical areas as set out in Schedules 1 and 2. Taken together, these will ensure a fair and transparent campaign. I am sure that noble Lords will not have failed to notice that the main focus of Committee and Report in the other place was Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Section 125 concerns restrictions placed on government and public bodies on publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. The other place voted to reapply the Section 125 restrictions in full and to create a power to make exceptions to these restrictions through regulations. As is proper, any regulations made under this new clause will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. The Government are also bound to consult the Electoral Commission and any regulations must be made at least four months before the referendum date.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Would it be possible for my noble friend to publish those regulations before we consider the later stages of this Bill? Clearly, the Government could by regulation, for instance, reinstate the provisions that abolished purdah. To ensure that we have a proper debate on this, why can the Government not let us know now what these regulations in draft form would contain?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, naturally we will discuss these matters further so I will say briefly, since this is the opening speech, that I have already given an undertaking to cross-party meetings in this House. The Government are not seeking to overturn the vote which they lost in another place. We will keep to that undertaking. On publishing the regulations, we are taking consideration about precisely what the risk will be of coming forward with regulations, with regard not to parliamentary procedure but to whether they would properly reflect the risk to the Government of acting or not acting on, for example, European business. If my noble friend will forgive me, we are at the stage where we are looking very carefully at a decision in another place. I feel sure I will be able to respond in more detail at a later date.
I deeply appreciate the concern felt by noble Lords on all sides of the House on this matter. I was about to say that if the Government propose any exceptions, we will of course be mindful that there will be two designated campaigns leading the debate and that it will be for those campaigns to take the lead, as Ministers have made clear from the start. It is worth dwelling on that point. It is absolutely right that the designated campaigns lead the debate over whether to remain a member of, or leave, the European Union. This is established practice in the United Kingdom, and forms a key plank of the Council of Europe’s best practice guidance on referendums. The campaigns will no doubt put forward their arguments with gusto, and there will be competing claims about the benefits or otherwise of a particular decision. The campaigns will assume primary responsibility for engaging the people of this country and ensuring that they are furnished with enough information to make an informed decision. Clearly, that is the right approach—but, also clearly, there is a role for government. The public will expect Ministers to set out the results of the renegotiation, how the relationship with Europe has been changed and if, and how, those changes address their concerns. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in June, I am sure that the Government will publish an assessment of the merits of membership and the risks of a lack of reform in the European Union, including the damage that that could do to Britain’s interests.
I have no doubt that, once the Prime Minister has announced the results of the renegotiation, there will be a lively and robust debate both in Parliament and in the media, as there should be. I know that this is a particularly important point for noble Lords. Indeed, a number of parliamentary inquiries, in the other place and here, have been launched into the renegotiation, including by the highly influential European Union Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Boswell. He is now, of course, independent, but he will always be a friend. The Government will continue to engage with them actively.
The Government have a clear mandate to hold a referendum on the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union. The EU referendum Bill will enable that to take place before the end of 2017. The Bill takes the best examples of good practice from previous referendums in the United Kingdom, and sets out rules on who can vote, and how they vote, which are reasonable and robust. It ensures a fair campaign so that the deck is not stacked in favour of one outcome or the other. This Bill sets the stage for one of the biggest decisions that the people of these islands have been asked to make in a generation. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that if the eight minutes’ advisory speaking time for Back-Bench speeches is adhered to, the House should rise at 10 o’clock. In addition, the House will adjourn after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, before Questions.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the proposals in the EU referendum Bill, and we look forward to working through the details as it goes through this place. Labour supports the proposal to hold a referendum on EU membership. We as a party are committed to retaining our membership of the EU and belonging to the club which has maintained peace, security and prosperity in western Europe for well over half a century. We understand, as does the CBI and most Union members, that our membership of the EU is integral to the success of the UK economy, and that the financial value of EU membership is the equivalent of over £3,000 per year to every family in the UK. But we have also come to realise that the constant debate on this theme and lack of commitment to the project by this Government are denting investor confidence and making people question where our long-term future lies. Therefore, we have agreed to support the call for a referendum to settle the question—but we also believe that it is imperative that we win and retain our membership, which gives us access to the biggest single market and largest trading bloc in the world, in addition to being the largest development aid donor.
It seems ironic that, at the time when issues and consequences of globalisation are literally landing on our shores, some believe that we can lift the drawbridge and isolate ourselves from the world. It seems desperately naive to me that, while our economies are becoming more linked than ever, some think that it is a good idea to withdraw our long-term commitment to support markets in the EU, where 50% of our trade in goods goes, for some whimsical hope that we can make up the ground in alternative markets, even as those markets are stalling.
Labour, of course, wants to see an EU committed to social justice and protective of people’s rights as individuals and in the workplace, and an EU understanding of the needs for environmental protection and long-term sustainable development. We want to stand in solidarity with our continental partners on the challenges that confront us all, because we are internationalists with an outward-looking vision. We know that our ability to exert influence in this increasingly complex world means that we need to sing in a chorus along with others, and it makes sense that those others are our nearest geographical neighbours.
We agree with the proposed changes in the wording suggested by the Electoral Commission on the question to be put to the public. However, on the issue of franchise, we think it is difficult for the Government to argue that they are sticking to the same franchise as for the Westminster elections. After all, as the Minister just outlined, Peers and Gibraltarians will be allowed to vote. The key issue for the Labour Party is that 16 and 17 year-olds deserve to vote. We all remember the intelligence and enthusiasm with which the youngsters of Scotland engaged in the independence referendum, and the Government have agreed that in any future referendum on tax-raising powers in Wales, 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote. There is no consistency whatever in the Government’s position of not allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the European referendum. This would be a once-in-a-generation opportunity for them to voice their opinion. It will, after all, be they who will live with the consequences of the result of the vote longer than any of us. It seems highly unfair to deny them the opportunity to speak on the important issue of Britain’s place in the world. We encourage the Government to change their mind on this issue. We are aware that some are already agitating from within the Government to make this happen.
There seems an incredible naivety in the Government’s approach to the referendum. For a party which has still not declared which side it will support, it is odd that there is almost no information or plan for what the UK’s relationship with the EU would be if we were to leave it. In any normal business environment you would ask, “What is the alternative?”. This basic question does not seem to have been asked, but one thing is clear: it has certainly not been answered.
The British people have a right to know what their country will look like and feel like if they vote to leave the EU. Labour will be proposing and supporting a group of amendments that will require some basic answers from the Government on this question. We believe that the British people deserve to know what the impact will be on their rights as individuals within the UK in the event of a “leave” vote. Will the EU social legislation securing maternity and paternity leave remain in place? Will temporary agency workers still be able to depend on a degree of protection? Will EU directives on health and safety at work still be honoured? Will we still be able to rely on the free movement of goods, people and capital? What assurances can the Government give on these basic questions? Will the European Charter of Fundamental Rights be incorporated into British law? We do not have a constitution in the UK, so it has been useful to know that we have the EU as a backstop protection for a whole host of rights, including the right to freedom of expression and information, consumer protection and the right to collective bargaining. Where would our assurances be on these issues if we were to leave the EU? How much further would the Government have gone on the Trade Union Bill had we not had the EU as a guardian?
What about the rights of EU citizens living in the UK? Would they be affected if we left the EU? Would they be allowed to stay? For how long? Would we just stop any more EU citizens entering? Would EU citizens need visas in future? What about the rights of UK citizens living in another EU country? We believe that there may be as many as 2 million of these. Would they be expected to come home? Would they need to uproot themselves from their new lives? Would they have the right to stay and use continental hospitals? Could they continue to have their pensions transferred abroad?
On the legislative and statutory consequences for the UK, we are told time and again by the Eurosceptics how much EU law is handed down to us on a plate. It is not true, of course—every EU law has to be discussed and generally approved by the UK Government—but it would be wrong to pretend that EU law has not had a major bearing on legislative practices at all levels of government in the UK. If we take environmental law—an obvious area for the EU to act, as pollution knows no boundaries—it is clear that much of our domestic law, not just here in Westminster, but in the devolved bodies around the UK and in local government, references or puts into regulation EU legislation. Have the Government made any calculation of how many laws will need to be rewritten if we were to leave the EU, or of how much it would cost to employ additional armies of legislators and how long it would all take? What of our ability to pursue criminals abroad, co-operate on anti-money laundering initiatives, monitor extremists and work with Europol? The Government’s first priority should be to protect their people. What assessment have they made of the impact on their ability to protect and co-operate in the areas of home affairs and justice if we left the EU?
We know that the coalition Government carried out a major exercise on the balance of competences between the UK and the EU. It was a massive job of work, incredibly comprehensive in its analysis. It produced a report, which has been buried without trace because it does not meet the internal row occurring in the Tory party. We need to know the consequences for each government department if we were to leave the EU. We appreciate that this is a significant piece of work, but the consequences of a no vote would also be significant. We argue that it is worth building on the balance of competences review. It would make sense for the Government not just to carry out this work, but to make sure that the public can access its findings. Let us not bury the next report. The public need and deserve to know, prior to any vote being held.
We also believe that the Government should go beyond these immediate questions and be absolutely clear on what the alternatives to EU membership will look like in the event of a no vote. The public need to know what the relationship with our biggest market will look like if we were to leave. We need to have some idea of what the Government think will be negotiable in the event of a UK vote to leave the EU, as an alternative to full membership. Let us not forget that every one of the 27 EU member states would have to approve this new relationship. Let us not forget also that the Prime Minister’s veto on EU treaty change in 2011 did not endear him to EU leaders. We know that just last week the leaders of Finland, Belgium, Romania and Spain opposed the Prime Minister’s plan to deny EU workers in the UK in-work benefits. If we were to leave, how generous do we think our former EU partners would be in terms of the price of access to their markets?
Would the Government like a complex Swiss-like relationship with the EU—a model that negotiates case-by-case deals with the EU? Despite the supposed beauty of this model to some, it should be noted that Switzerland has not managed to secure access to the EU market for its main economic sector, financial services. We should be absolutely clear that maintaining London as the pre-eminent financial centre of Europe would become more difficult whatever model we adopt outside of the EU. Switzerland is also part of the Schengen zone and has no border controls at its frontiers. It has to implement a larger proportion of EU law than the UK.
Alternatively, we could go for a Turkish model of a customs union and not much else, but it should be noted that Turkey cannot conclude any separate trade deals—one of the biggest supposed advantages claimed by the no campaign. Or would the Government rather a Norwegian model—a model, let us not forget, that insists on freedom of movement, goods and capital? There would be no change on EU immigration. Incidentally, we would still have to pay for the privilege of trading and would have to comply with every single one of the market rules, without any say in formulating them. Would this really enhance our sovereignty as a nation? Norway has already advised us that we should leave only if we,
“want to be run by Europe”.
If we dismiss all these alternatives, we are left with a much more distant relationship with our continental friends. We could rely on WTO rules to have access to EU markets but that would leave British car manufacturers facing a 9.8% tariff on the export of cars. Eurosceptics say that we could negotiate all this away because the EU has a trade surplus with the UK, and this is true. But it does not take account of the fact that the EU’s exports to the UK account for about 2.5% of its GDP, while it is 14% of our GDP. I am pretty sure that I would be driving a hard bargain if I was sitting on the EU’s side of the table. Or do the Eurosceptics have some other plan in mind? If they do, it needs to be spelled out publicly before the vote.
There have been numerous studies to investigate the impact on the UK economy if we were to leave the EU but never before have we been in a position where the possibility of this happening has been so real. Therefore, we call on the Government to ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to publish a report prior to the referendum on the effects of withdrawal from the EU on the UK economy. We should also underline the fact that globalisation has meant there is an understanding that pooling resources and co-operation is the direction of travel—just look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, signed between the US and 11 different Pacific nations in recent weeks. Retreating and turning our back on the world needs to be understood as a retrograde step. Finally, it is worth underlining that although all these reports are essential to inform the public, the case in relation to the EU also needs to be made on an emotional and patriotic basis.
Britain has and should continue to have aspirations to lead in the world. The defence of our national interest in Europe and beyond—economically, politically and diplomatically—will be put in jeopardy if we leave the EU. Our partners, particularly the US, would not understand a decision to exit. It would diminish Britain’s influence, image and reputation. Instead of seizing an opportunity to show leadership ourselves, we would be handing over leadership in Europe to Germany for a generation. It is also likely that our seat on the UN Security Council would soon be called into question. Our absence from the political and diplomatic debate on the current threats facing Europe, not least on the EU’s eastern borders with Russia, would hardly enhance our influence within NATO.
Being a part of the single market will create jobs for our children and grandchildren. It will give them opportunities to live, work, study and travel on a broader stage. It will allow us influence on the international stage and forge stronger scientific and innovative ties. Our universities would suffer grievously from the absence of R&D funding from Europe. Let us not forget that if parts of the UK were to vote against and others were to vote in favour, most notably Scotland, it would drive the nationalist agenda for separation and almost certainly lead to a second referendum north of the border.
My first job on leaving university was as an intern in the European Parliament. I remember very clearly my first day, entering an office where there was a very chic-looking Parisienne wearing bright red lipstick, and a confident-looking German man ready for work. The Parisienne came in, put her feet on the desk, lit a cigarette and said, “What goes on here, then?”. The German was infuriated and through gritted teeth he said, “Do you mind putting out that cigarette?”. She answered, “Why? Do you have a problem?”. For me, that first scene in Brussels summed up the need for the EU. The Parisienne thought it was her right to smoke, the German thought it was his right to clean air, and now they had to sit down and work out their differences. In all the talk of markets and rights and responsibilities, we must not forget that the EU is the most successful example of a peacemaking institution in history. In this world full of instability, threats and new global challenges, we leave at our peril.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is with some regret that I stand here opening for the Liberal Democrat Benches this morning as my noble friend Lady Ludford is not able to be with us for personal reasons. We send her and her husband good wishes.
It is also somewhat with regret that I participate in this debate at all. The Minister said she was delighted to open this debate bringing forward the Government’s proposals to hold a referendum on whether Britain should remain in the European Union. As a committed pro-European who joined a pro-European party more than 30 years ago, and believed that the question of Britain’s membership of the European Union had been resolved while I was still a child, it is somewhat demoralising to think that the question is being reopened, and that somehow a major constitutional issue which should have been resolved in 1975 is back on the drawing board.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Am I wrong in thinking that at the election before last the Liberals had a manifesto commitment to give Britain an in/out referendum? What is the noble Baroness talking about?
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct: the Liberal Democrats had a commitment to an in/out referendum and I will come to that in a moment. Temporarily, if he will allow me, I am speaking personally and I do not think that referendums are necessarily helpful. However, it was party policy for the Liberal Democrats to hold an in/out referendum at the time of treaty change in line with the 2011 EU Act passed during the coalition Government. That was not to hold a referendum on the basis of reform renegotiation along the lines of the Conservative manifesto of 2015. We recognise as a party that the Conservatives won the general election and that we are to move towards a referendum. That is absolutely clear. We will not get into the detail today of whether we will have a referendum: it will clearly happen.
Rather, I will flag up some areas that my colleagues will want to elaborate on during the debate. These are issues of the franchise, the question and reports, of the nature that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, touched on. In particular, we will want to talk about the franchise. Here, the Minister said she had heard people calling for votes for 16 and 17 year-olds. I suspect that noble Lords will hear a lot more calls for votes for 16 and 17 year-olds in the course of today’s debate and through the passage of the Bill. It is the future of this country that matters. The Minister already said that this Bill is about the future of the United Kingdom, but if it is about the future of anybody it is that of our young people. The referendum last year in Scotland demonstrated that 16 and 17 year-olds can be trusted to vote and engage in political decisions, and these are questions about their future as much as that of Members of your Lordships’ House—many of whom already had a vote on whether Britain should remain part of the then European Community in 1975. Our 16 and 17 year-olds did not and it is their future as much as ours that is at stake.
In addition to 16 and 17 year-olds, many residents of the United Kingdom are disfranchised. These are EU nationals, who exercise their rights under the EU treaty to live and work in the United Kingdom and who thought they would be here as EU citizens. Surely they have at least as much interest in this referendum as Commonwealth citizens who happen to be resident in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I would like the Government to reflect on the extent of the franchise and votes for EU nationals, who contribute so much to the United Kingdom.
The Minister pointed out that another pledge in the Conservative manifesto of 2015 was to extend the franchise to Brits who have lived abroad for more than 15 years. In many cases that includes British nationals who are resident in Brussels and work in the EU institutions precisely because the United Kingdom is part of the European Union. I believe it also includes some Members of your Lordships’ House who are resident in France or in other countries. They will be enfranchised through the provision that Peers who are resident in France will be able to vote, but other British nationals who have been abroad for more than 15 years would not currently have the franchise. Yet surely they are exercising their rights under the EU treaty. Do they not have a right to have a say? It is not simply British nationals resident in the United Kingdom who have a profound stake in this referendum; it is also British nationals resident in other EU countries, who are benefiting from the current legislation to which we, the United Kingdom, signed up. Therefore, I ask the Minister to look again at the franchise and to help us, as Members of your Lordships’ House, and the citizens of the United Kingdom and our partners and allies in the European Union, to understand what the British Government want and what the question really means.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, pointed out, the question has been reframed by the Electoral Commission. The Liberal Democrats, like the Labour Party, are happy to accept the revised question. It may indeed create maximum neutrality, as the Minister suggested, but it does not necessarily reflect maximum clarity. The previous wording,
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”,
with a yes or no option, at least appeared clear. We know what such membership entails, and to campaign or to vote on whether we stay or do not stay would appear to be clear. If we add into that the question of leaving, then we surely need some explanation of what leaving means. At one level it might appear to be entirely straightforward. We walk away from the European Union and from everything we signed up to in 1973. We walk away from the whole acquis communautaire that has been delivered ever since—legislation that the United Kingdom has indeed signed up to, which has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. That would be the relatively easy way of doing things—simply to tear everything up and start again. Superficially it is—to walk away, to be in splendid isolation, an autarchic country. That may be the UKIP position, but I suspect that it is not the position of Her Majesty’s Government, nor indeed of many Eurosceptics who wish to leave the European Union and who believe that there are alternatives—which could be the European Economic Area or the Swiss model, or perhaps something sui generis.
The question then becomes: are any of these other models more beneficial? We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that the European Economic Area may not be the deus ex machina that many people think. It is sometimes suggested that we could be like Norway. Indeed, we could try to be like Norway. It has the advantage of sovereign wealth funds. It has the advantage of being a small country that is integrated into the European markets. It has also signed up to much of EU’s acquis communautaire. But it does not have a seat at the table. It has what many people have referred to as “fax democracy”. I am told that that term is outdated. It is no longer fax democracy. Maybe it is e-democracy. The point is that the Norwegians are not able to sit at the table, as Her Majesty’s Government Ministers are able to sit at the table, and to legislate. They simply take what is given through the acquis.
It is true that the European Economic Area agreement has not been changed since 1994; it is in that sense static. But it is dynamic in the sense that, since 1994, 7,000 EU legal Acts have been incorporated into the agreement annexes. So the idea that somehow shifting to be part of the European Economic Area along with Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein would be in any way preferable raises a whole set of questions. The United Kingdom would simply become a policy taker without a seat at the table. Nor is the Swiss model any better because, essentially, the Swiss are required to do what they are told. The Swiss bilateral agreements at the moment include 100 sectoral agreements that already provide for considerable integration, and the European Parliament as recently as July this year reminded us that the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms and a pillar of the single market. It has always been an inseparable part of the preconditions for the bilateral approach between the EU and Switzerland. So the Swiss model is not necessarily going to be any better than the EEA model or, indeed, membership of the European Union.
It is important that we understand what “leave” means, and I ask the Minister what provision the Government are making for reports that explain what it might mean and what the alternative models might mean. Could she also explain to us her understanding of Article 50? If the citizens of the United Kingdom, whether or not on an expanded franchise, are voting to leave the European Union, Article 50 suggests that the other 27 member states will decide what agreement they will make with the United Kingdom. We will not have a seat at the table. So the idea that we can set out scenarios of what we want may in any case be fanciful. I ask the Minister to explain further what the Government understand by “leave” and to bring forward a report to explain what the alternatives would be and how they would be explained to the British public.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I very much agree with the Minister on the importance of this Bill and of the referendum to come. The battle lines are already being drawn and campaigns are being drawn up, and personally I very much look forward to the jousting to come between, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rose, both of whom I had the pleasure to meet for the first time in Paris.
I tie my own banner firmly to the lance of the “in” campaign. I believe that Britain’s economic interests lie firmly in membership of the European Union; the single market helps our exports and encourages European Union and non-European Union companies to invest here and, in doing so, to create jobs, many of them in high unemployment areas outside the affluent south-east. Trade, investment and jobs all benefit from our EU membership. Would the economy collapse if we were out of the EU? Of course not—but would that trade, that investment and those jobs be at risk? Yes, they would, and the consequences are unknown and unknowable.
The argument that our membership of the EU somehow hinders us from developing our trade with the growing economies of China, India, Brazil and Indonesia strikes me as bizarre. Membership of the EU has not hindered our trade relations with the United States, for example, so why should it with others outside the European Union? Surely, we need to pursue both energetically. This is not a zero-sum game. The EU trade agreements with much of the non-EU world, negotiated with the clout of an EU of more than 500 million people, help our own trade. We can and do influence the negotiation of such agreements and we benefit from the results. Do we want to risk all that by leaving the EU? I do not think so.
Our influence as part of the European Union boosts our foreign policy too. Take the long, difficult but ultimately successful negotiations with Iran. Britain’s presence alongside that of France and Germany in formulating and supporting the EU’s position, linked to our strong relationship with the United States, had a real and positive influence over the outcome of those negotiations in Britain’s interest.
I fear that Ukraine provides a foretaste of what life might be like outside the European Union. Chancellor Merkel goes to Washington in February for talks with President Obama. Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande then go to Minsk for talks with President Putin, and earlier this month, the three meet again in Paris to discuss not only Ukraine but Syria. Where was the UK? Absent. Yet the civil war in Ukraine, on Europe’s borders, and the crisis in Syria really matter to us. It is surely in our interests to work within the EU with the French and the Germans to seek solutions with the Russians to crises such as those in Ukraine and Syria.
To advance our own interests, we need to be on the inside working with our EU partners and fully engaged—not in a static European Union. The EU faces huge challenges, notably over the future of the eurozone and the migration crisis. It has to evolve to meet those challenges, and we, the United Kingdom, need to ensure, as others will, that as it changes, our interests are advanced and protected.
I therefore hope that the present negotiations over our membership succeed. In particular, we need to ensure that a more closely integrated eurozone—which needs to and, I believe, will, happen—in no way conflicts with the single market of all 28 European Union states, and that the position of the City of London is thereby not jeopardised. I hope that the Minister will be able to give an account of the present state of negotiations, although I recognise the need for caution while they are continuing.
I hope that the negotiations can be successfully completed and the referendum held by this time next year at the latest. The closer we get to the French and German elections in the summer and autumn of 2017, the less likely they will be to make the concessions we need. I therefore see no advantage in drawing out the negotiations and delaying the referendum into 2017.
I look forward to Committee on the Bill. I do not think it should be greatly delayed, but there are issues which need discussion, some of which have already been mentioned. Like others, I think that there is a strong case for extending the franchise, as in the Scottish referendum, to 16 and 17 year-olds. The purity of the general election franchise has already been breached to allow Peers and citizens of Gibraltar to vote. It would surely be right to allow the generation who will be so greatly affected by the outcome of the referendum to take part in it. I also hope that the Government will agree to provide an assessment of the implications for Britain outside the European Union alongside that of Britain inside a reformed European Union. That seems to me both fair and necessary.
I have one final point. We have over the years under successive Prime Ministers had a real and positive influence over the EU’s development: the single market, enlargement to the east and south and a more diversified European Union. It seems to me to be firmly in the British interest and, indeed, the British tradition to have the confidence to continue to use our influence within the EU—within, I hope, a reformed EU—to advance our national interest and the interests of the EU itself.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, in a matter as grave as the future relations between Britain and the European Union, there is perhaps a case for a referendum, which one hopes would settle the direction of travel for a generation. The referendum habit has elsewhere proved contagious. They tend to be run again if those in power do not get the answer they want. There must be a very strong case to justify an exception from our settled preference for a representative democracy that permits the kinds of compromises that the art of government requires. As Burke famously remarked:
“Your representative owes you … his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion”.
I hope that as the referendum debate gets under way, focusing on the questions that have now been decided on in the form they appear in the Bill, it will be made clear that this really is a once-in-a-generation event. I also hope that, although the national interest of the country will inevitably occupy centre stage, we shall not forget that there are wider considerations. We are debating our future relations with the Union, not with Europe as a whole. As western hegemony fades and gives way to a more multipolar world and the memories of World War II recede to be replaced by a different sense of the economic, political and ecological challenges that we face, I hope that the debate will be wide enough to make a contribution to what in any case is necessary: the reimaging of Europe. It surely is not a case of Britain versus the rest, but a proper articulation of anxieties and an agenda for reform that is widely shared by other countries in the Union. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, has already made the point that the question of how members of the eurozone relate to the other members of the Union clearly demands new thinking.
Europe as a concept may seem very old, but your Lordships will recognise how new Europe is in its present form. The father of the nymph Europa in the myth was actually the King of Tyre in Lebanon. By the time of the Homeric hymns, the term “Europe” was used only for central Greece, because Europe, like Proteus, has continually changed its shape and character. After the cataclysms of the years 1914 to 1989, Europe was remade, as Tomas Masaryk said, in,
“a laboratory … atop a vast graveyard”.
Our present situation is not the result of any historical inevitabilities; it is just one of many possible outcomes of the protracted 20th century European civil war.
Our task in this referendum is to be active and creative partners in identifying afresh the resources to establish a foundation for the common values and principles of a Europe that is still a project in the building. The Church of England, in partnership with the Church of Scotland, hopes to contribute to this new thinking by hosting a blog which has recently been relaunched, entitled Reimagining Europe. The intention is to provide a platform for faith-informed debate. Reimagining Europe has no editorial line. I believe that prelates and parsons should not aspire to the influence that is proper to the partisan, so there is no place in this blog for telling people how to vote. But we should not shrink from seeking to enhance public understanding of an issue that many find confusing and divisive, but which is one of extraordinary significance. There must be more to this referendum than a calculation of the temporary individual economic benefit or disbenefit of membership of the Union in its present form.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate on what was an outstandingly good speech. I have to embarrass him by saying that I agreed with every word—as of course I did with my noble friend the Minister. Having also agreed with most of what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, said, I caution her about her throwaway line about splits, pointing to this side of the House. I think she needs to look behind her, and to remember that if it had not been for the courage of Roy Jenkins, we would never have been able to enter the European Union in the first place.
Perhaps I had better move away from controversy and back to Edmund Burke. Another reason why I agreed with the right reverend Prelate is that I have always adhered to the basic principle of democracy as brilliantly and famously elucidated and promulgated by Edmund Burke: that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to use their experience and, above all, their judgment, the better to resolve the policy challenges of the age in which they live. Taken at face value, that principle appears to militate against the use of a referendum, but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, that although I agree in part with her comments about a referendum, I was persuaded at the time of the Lisbon treaty that it was time to test public opinion again on our relationship with Europe. I can see no other way of drawing a line under the fractious, divisive debate over our relationship with Europe which has threatened to paralyse not only my party but politics and political discourse in this country more generally.
Over my lifetime, I have heard much talk of the sovereignty of Parliament, but sovereignty ultimately belongs not to Parliament, nor to parliamentarians, but to the people. When the union between England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which I passionately support, is at stake, or when our role in the family of nations of Europe, as embodied by the European Union, which I also passionately support, is at stake, the fundamental question of sovereignty is also at stake. When sovereignty is pooled, shared or invested—whichever term of art we choose—then, sometimes, it is right to put the argument directly to the people; or, to put it another way, it would be wrong not to do so.
We in this House—and even our colleagues in another place, who enjoy a democratic mandate that we do not—can and should claim no ownership over the sovereignty of the people. It is entrusted and leased to us by them, but the freehold does and must always remain with them.
I add that while the prospect of promoting a positive role for the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe was an inspiration to me and played a major part in bringing me into politics and active public life, like many others in this Chamber and elsewhere, I have had more than my fair share of frustration with the European Economic Community and the European Union. I said before that I agreed with every word spoken by the right reverend Prelate. I also agreed with every word spoken by my then leader, Margaret Thatcher—I speak as a former chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe. I was present when our leader launched the yes campaign in 1975, 40 years ago. It was the first occasion on which she appeared on the same platform as Ted Heath. I remind people exactly what our leader said, which was that,
“the Conservative party has been pursuing the European vision almost as long as we have existed as a Party”.
After quoting Disraeli and all our other previous leaders, she made the clear point that:
“We are inextricably part of Europe”.
I so strongly agree.
I must tell the House that when I was Secretary of State for Employment I took a case to the European Court, because sometimes the European Union felt like the bane of my life. I fought tooth and claw to retain the flexibility in the labour market that this nation so desperately needs if it is to compete effectively in the global market against the more collectivist and protectionist instincts of colleagues, even centre-right colleagues, from elsewhere in the EU. I greatly regret the decision of the Blair Government to sign up to the social protocol of the Maastricht treaty, from which Sir John Major as Prime Minister had so skilfully extricated us.
Despite these occasional frustrations, I have never doubted that our great nation is a part of Europe and, in order to retain our extraordinary, hard-earned and benign influence in the world, it must remain part of the European Union. We will hear much in the months ahead about the economic arguments for remaining within the European Union but I hope we will also think very hard about the political arguments about this highly respected nation of ours retaining a place at the top table. All our true friends elsewhere in the world agree with that proposition and virtually every President of the United States has been eager to see us play a full role at the heart of Europe.
In conclusion, this referendum will provide us all with the opportunity, after four decades, to put our distinctive and authoritative stamp once again on the most important decision our nation has taken since the end of hostilities in 1945. I am confident that the Prime Minister will present a deal that is in the best interests of this country and, when he does, I shall relish playing my own part in the campaign to persuade the people to endorse it. To quote Margaret Thatcher in 1990 again:
“We want Britain to play a leading part in Europe and to be part of the further political, economic and monetary development of the European Community”.
How right she was in 1990 and how right we all are to endorse that principle now.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that I am not a natural supporter of this piece of legislation. I still regard the Government’s renegotiation and referendum strategy as a reckless gamble, not just with our position in Europe but with the future of the United Kingdom itself. I think that has to be said. But now that a referendum is inevitable, I will be campaigning wholeheartedly for us to remain. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that at the Labour Party conference, which I had the fortune—or misfortune —to attend a fortnight or so ago, a resolution was carried saying that whatever the outcome of Mr Cameron’s negotiation, Labour will be campaigning to remain in the EU, and there was not a single voice in opposition.
I also think that this is a cross-party question and I want the Prime Minister to succeed in his renegotiation efforts. I do not think that we will succeed in the referendum without a positive lead from him. I want to make just a few remarks about how I think he can succeed. First, he should listen to what this House has to say about this piece of legislation. Surely on an issue of historic significance which will matter for generations to come, we should legislate to have both the widest possible franchise and the widest range of objective analysis available to citizens about the issues at stake—not just a narrow calculus of the costs and benefits of membership but a thorough examination of the alternatives to membership and a more geopolitical argument about how we see Britain’s place in the world. This objective analysis is essential. We cannot let this issue be decided by the pockets of the hedge fund managers who will finance the anti campaign.
The second advice to the Prime Minister is that he must beware those pressing for delay to get, as they claim, the best possible deal. Of course, within the EU the Prime Minister must make his case robustly for the changes that he wants. However, the view seems prevalent among some people that if only the Prime Minister goes into that European Council room and bangs the table again and again, he will get whatever he wants. That is not the way the European Union works. It completely misunderstands the nature of the EU, which is a complex system of law and due process built up over decades precisely to try to stop countries behaving in that kind of arbitrary way.
Yet the people who say that the Prime Minister should up his demands do not do so because they think he will get his demands but because they want out. Noble Lords in this House who argue that, yes, they would be prepared to stay in Europe if we got comprehensive treaty change, a cut in the EU budget, a fundamental rewriting of the rules on free movement and the right for the House of Commons to veto EU laws must know that those are impossible demands. They make them only to justify a campaign to leave. We have a lot of experience of that in this party. Some of us fought Trotskyist infiltration in the past—and might have to do so again. I urge my friends opposite to avoid being taken in by what are called transitional demands.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister cannot solve everything in his renegotiation. He should look upon it as a pointer to the Europe that he wants to see with Britain at its heart. There is a tremendous opportunity to achieve reform in Europe. The new European Commission set out a very British agenda about deepening the single market, reforming the way Europe regulates and having trade deals with the rest of the world. I would also like to see a strong social dimension in that—others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might disagree. The agenda is now one of reform and our Prime Minister, if he wanted, could lead that. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, there is also an opportunity for our Prime Minister to take a much stronger role in using the EU to demonstrate that Britain can still have an influence in the world. With French and German elections coming up, and with the end of the Obama presidency, there is a tremendous opportunity now for the Prime Minister to demonstrate that leadership using our membership of the European Union. I hope that he does so.
Finally, the referendum is basically an asymmetric choice. A vote to come out will be final. If we voted to come out, we would invoke Article 50 of the treaty and in practice exclude ourselves from the EU Council chamber and any of the debate about what Britain’s future role with the EU would be. We would be on our own and there would be no way back. One dangerous thing that we have to avoid is people on the other side somehow thinking that a vote to leave is actually a vote for better terms. It is not, and it never can be; it is a vote out. On the other side, a vote to remain is not a vote for the EU status quo. It is a vote for a strong Britain to argue for reform in Europe in the way that Britain wants to see. Therefore, I say to the Prime Minister, “Don’t mess about. Get on with it. Take courage in your hands and let’s go for this referendum quickly”.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support this Bill. It fills a democratic deficit. As the Minister said, people have not had a direct say on a European issue for more than 40 years. No one under the age of 58 has been able to have such a direct say on our relationship with the European Union. I am pleased that the Opposition are not opposing this Bill, although in the Commons they opposed the previous Private Member’s Bill by Mr James Wharton. Nevertheless, I welcome their support for the Bill today.
However, some, like the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—he and I have often debated this—are quite unhappy. Even if they do not oppose the Bill, they think, as the noble Lord made quite explicit, that it is wrong to gamble with something as big and significant as our membership of the EU, since so much time and capital have been invested in it. To my mind, such an attitude reveals a distrust of democracy. That is and has been one of the weaknesses of the European Union. If there is any blame to be attached to why we are having a referendum, I suggest that it lies with those who promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty and then went along with converting the constitution into a constitutional treaty, for the obvious reason that they wanted to avoid a referendum. That created enormous cynicism. It was a blatant manoeuvre to avoid democratic accountability and it confirmed the suspicion that Europe is about building a political project regardless of political opinion in the member states. Of course, Europe today is very different from the Europe that was put to the British people when we last had a referendum—and, indeed, when we joined the EU in the first place.
No doubt we will have intensive discussions in Committee. It has already been clearly signalled from the Benches opposite that there will be amendments about the franchise. I wholly support what the Minister said. If we are going to alter the qualification for voting, we should decide to do that for general elections first; that is when we should consider it. If we want to encourage more participation of young people in politics, let us concentrate on getting the 18 to 24 year-olds involved in the first place before we lower the voting age.
I do think that Clause 6 needs looking at. It is not at all clear why the Government have to disapply any part of Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I read what Mr David Lidington said in the House of Commons and it is not at all clear what he was worried about and why we cannot have a full purdah during the period of the referendum. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could give an example of exactly what the Minister and the Government are so worried about that they have to have this only partial application of Section 125. I remind the House that Section 125 is about material that is put out to the whole public. It is not about circulating documents to people who may be affected by some negotiation.
My position on the referendum is that I will wait to see the results of the renegotiation before I finally make up my mind. A renegotiated settlement for Britain that changed our relationship significantly would have much to commend it. I know this will offend some enthusiasts on the other side but, because of our opt-outs from Schengen and the single currency, we are already semi-detached, country club members—associate members. Sometimes I wonder whether Europe, as it goes forward, is not going to leave us rather than us leaving it—in many ways I think that would be a preferable way to proceed. But Europe goes on.
I am somewhat underwhelmed by what appeared in the Sunday Telegraph about the Government’s apparent negotiating objectives. I know you must not show your hand in negotiations and that an element of bluff is involved, but I thought that you had to bluff your opponents rather than your supporters. That is what worries me a little. I do not think that removing the phrase “ever closer union” will be of great legal significance. It is largely symbolic. I believe strongly that the red card system for national parliaments is not coming out of the negotiations at all. As the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has demonstrated, it has been on the table for a very long time already. It is just qualified majority voting by a different route. I do not think that it is enough just to buttress the wall between the eurozone and ourselves. I believe that Britain could survive perfectly well outside the European Union.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Does the noble Lord consider that we should opt out of, for example, foreign policy and security policy discussions in the European Union? That is a very important issue.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I do not believe that we should have a foreign policy determined by voting. Foreign policy should be intergovernmental. If we were outside the European Union I am sure that one of the things that we could easily co-operate with the European Union on would be foreign policy. The European Union would be extremely ill advised if it did not want us to co-operate with it on foreign policy.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rose, who, before he became leader of the yes campaign, said that he thought that it was a red herring, nonsense and ridiculous to imply that if Britain were outside the European Union we would lose inward investment or that firms would leave this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, did not think very much of the Swiss arrangement, but she must look at the results of that arrangement, whatever she thinks of it. Switzerland, though not a member of the EU, is more integrated with the European Union economy than we are. Its exports per capita are higher than those of this country. The proportion of its GDP that is traded with the EU is higher than that of this country. Contrary to what was said about not having access to the market, Swiss banks and insurance companies operate throughout Europe.
If a man from Mars came and looked at this country’s trade statistics, he would find it impossible to identify when we joined the European Union. In fact, the period when our trade increased most with Europe was immediately before we joined. But this is not about just economics but something more. On 7 October, in an ill-tempered exchange at the European Parliament with Mr Nigel Farage, who has his uses, President Hollande blurted out, “Do you really want to leave a common state? That is the question”. If he had said that a bit earlier some of us might have written to the Electoral Commission, suggesting that it ought to be on the ballot paper. He said, “Do you want to leave a common state and leave democracy?”. What an extraordinary thing to say. We do not want a common state at all. We want to insulate ourselves from increasing integration but we also have to look at the supremacy of EU law. If that cannot be tackled, we need to narrow down hugely the area to which community law applies. That will insulate us from the developments happening in Europe, which are going in a direction that many of us do not support.
I wish the Government well. They will need energy and determination. Once we have the results of that renegotiation, it will be for the British people to decide.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I sometimes wonder how we got to this situation. Some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said are absolutely right, about the duplicity that there has been in politics on all sides about the referendum. Having said that, as a Liberal Democrat and someone who, like most of my party, is very much in favour of Europe, wants to see the development of Europe and a successful Britain within a successful Europe, I am hugely disappointed that, during this period of focus groups in politics and trying to find out what people and electorates are thinking when manifestos are put together, Europe peaked at only number 10 or 11 rather than somewhere near the top of the list of electoral issues that people felt were important. Yet this—not health, the economy or even migration—is the area on which we have a referendum, due to a very hostile press and a strong campaign by a minority of people, particularly in the Conservative Party. So it is a strange place for a democracy to be.
Just to correct something said by the Minister, there may have been lots of referenda elsewhere in the European Union, usually around treaty changes, but none of them was an in/out referendum. On the challenge to us as Liberal Democrats made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, it was of course only when Liberal Democrats were in government, ironically, that we legislated for the circumstances in which there would be a referendum on European issues, which effectively would have been an in/out referendum. So the party can stand fairly tall in that area.
The big challenge of the European Union referendum is that, once we go through the process—first of all winning it, because the consequences of not winning it, as has been said so well from the Labour Benches, will be fundamental and irreversible for Britain’s future as a unitary state and its position in the world—we need to make sure that we do not have the situation that we already seem to have in Scotland, whereby people ask for a second, third or fourth referendum. I am sure that those who lose the referendum, if it is lost—or if it is gained but the result is very uncertain, but the vote is to stay in—will still campaign for new referenda. We have to make sure that we do not become a second-class member of the European Union through our negotiations and that, if we win the referendum, there is a determination from the Prime Minister and his successors that Britain takes Europe seriously and we participate as fully as we can, even with the exclusions that we have, and take our role in Europe, in which leading it has to be part. Over the past few years, we have lost that leadership.
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, we can see that in Ukraine; we have not figured at all in those negotiations. It seems a great irony to me that, particularly as soon we will be celebrating and thinking about the end of the Great War in 1918—we are halfway through that cycle at the moment—part of the reason for that war and British foreign policy for many years has been stopping continental domination by a single power. By our having shown that we have a very slight, difficult and reserved position on our role in Europe, we have handed that position to Germany and Angela Merkel. We now have a Europe that is quite unhealthy in terms of German domination. The greater irony, of course, is that this is the last thing that Angela Merkel and Germany want. It is really important for not just Europe’s position in the world but our own to make sure that through this referendum, if it is won and we stay in Europe, we fulfil our role there.
Another lesson from the coalition period was when my then colleague, the right honourable Ed Davey, led on much of the negotiations for the Paris treaty on climate change later this year. By fully engaging and leading and working closely with other major European nations, the European Union was able once again to lead in the run-up to those negotiations, and Britain was at the front in getting an EU position. So it can work.
The franchise is clearly going to be a major part of the debate in Committee and on Report. I just looked at the figures in the Scottish referendum and there was something that said that participation among 16 to 17 year-olds was not as great as among people my age—but it was 75%. To me, the interesting thing was that in the age group above that—the 18 to 24 year-olds, the ones who entered politics, if you like, at 18 and were able to vote—participation was only 54%. That shows that if you get engagement early, that is an opportunity for these people to take an interest in the political system. It is important for this referendum, particularly because these people will be affected by the decision far, far more than me and many people in this House.
I also ask the Government to reconsider the franchise for UK nationals abroad. On page 49 of the Conservative manifesto, it says:
“We will introduce votes for life, scrapping the rule that bars British citizens who have lived abroad for more than 15 years from voting”.
That was a manifesto commitment. The Government have an opportunity to do that now and I ask them to comply with the Salisbury convention and make sure that they do not vote against the manifesto of the winning party in the general election.
The only other area I want to mention, which has been highlighted already, is that we do not know what the alternatives are to being a member of the European Union. I have this wonderful device on my iPhone, as, I am sure, do many of your Lordships. It is called TomTom and I can put it up in my car and it guides me to where I am going, which is quite useful because, like many Members, I go all over the country to visit people. If I go off-course or I change course, miraculously this little computer in my iPhone redirects me down the new route to where I am going. There is certainty; I know where I am going and that I will get to my destination. That is absolutely not the case in this referendum and we must make sure that this area is discussed fully.
Finally, when Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, the Prime Minister put out a tweet saying:
“The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family’s security”.
I thought that was rather pathetic and it demeaned the office of Prime Minister. The fact is, I am afraid, that Jeremy Corbyn is very unlikely to ever become Prime Minister. David Cameron is Prime Minister and the EU referendum affects all those areas of threat. As Prime Minister, David Cameron has a huge responsibility to deliver this referendum positively and I sincerely hope he will be able to do that.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, there are two things on which everybody in this House can agree: that this referendum and its outcome will be very important to the country and that therefore it is incumbent upon this House to do everything we can in Committee and on Report to ensure that, when the Bill gets on the statute book, it is as good as it can be. By that, I mean that it should be formulated in such a way as to provide the British people with the basis on which to make a clear, well-informed and objective choice.
I hope, too, that both sides of the battle will respect the patriotism of the other. The tendency for people to accuse the other side of being unpatriotic has always been a rather disagreeable aspect of debates on Britain and Europe. I certainly believe that it would be profoundly damaging to this country’s short and long-term interests to leave the European Union but I know that those who want to take us out believe the contrary and that they are as devoted to the well-being and strength of this country as I am.
I start with a general point: the Prime Minister should be given time to conduct these negotiations with other member states as he thinks best. He won an election and earned a right to our trust. When he completes his negotiations, the country can judge for itself what he has achieved. Those negotiations should be conducted not in public but in private. Once the Prime Minister secures whatever deal he believes is the best that he can, the public should be given the opportunity to cast their vote on it. When that result is known, there should be no hanging about. As we saw in Scotland, referendums cast a long shadow. The period of uncertainty should be as short and the referendum called as quickly as possible. I would like to see it called next year. My principal point is that once the negotiations are completed, it should be called as quickly as possible thereafter.
It is important that the British public should be as well informed as possible on the implications of the alternatives. This is not just a simple question of in or out. People need to know what the implications are of changing the status quo. In Scotland, one of the weaknesses of those who wanted to break with the United Kingdom was that they were unable to answer a host of questions about what that would actually mean. They could not even answer the questions on the currency. In this referendum, which is just as important for the United Kingdom as a whole as the Scottish referendum was for the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, it is absolutely essential that people should know in detail what is involved in coming out in terms of the legislative changes that will be required and of our trade with the European Union and with third countries with whom we have trade agreements signed as part of the European Union. We need to know what the implications will be for the free movement of British citizens within the European Union. We need to know what the impact on the scientific research programmes and universities in this country will be. We need to know what the budgetary implications will be, and a host of other things. This is something in which people need to see both sides of the balance sheet. If there is to be a change in the status quo, people need to be as well informed as possible on what that involves. Her Majesty’s Government have a duty to provide that.
Turning to the franchise, it is right that it should be for the British people to decide. I agree with the Minister on that point. It would not be right for other EU citizens to be able to participate in this referendum. However, by the same token, I do not particularly see why Pakistanis, Zimbabweans, Australians or Canadians should be able to participate in it, either. I sought advice from the Library and I find that if Australia, Canada or New Zealand—to take three monarchies within the Commonwealth—hold important referendums, British citizens resident in those countries are not able to participate, and I do not particularly see why we should. If the Australians are having a referendum on the monarchy, that is their business and not ours; and if we are having a referendum on whether to stay in the European Union, that is our business and not theirs. If the Minister believes that it is important that this is a British issue for British people, I hope that she will do something about the non-British people who are at present able to vote.
The other point that I want to make refers to the 16 and 17 year-olds. We have a very interesting example before us in Scotland. My impression is that it worked well. I do not agree with those who say that if there is to be a change in the voting age, it should be introduced for general elections rather than for referendums. General elections are about the next five years. This referendum is certainly for the next generation and perhaps for very much longer. It does, therefore, touch the 16 and 17 year-olds very precisely. I will listen to the arguments but I incline very much at the moment to support those who would extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds.
I look forward to playing a part in the battle ahead. I look forward to putting the case for Britain in Europe to the people of this country. I look forward to showing up what I believe are the weaknesses in the case put forward by those who want to leave. I know that we have a fight on our hands. I take nothing for granted. However, I am confident that in putting forward the case for Britain to remain in Europe, I am putting forward the case for the best interests of Britain and the British people.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, I remember the 1975 referendum, and at the time it was much criticised for being unconstitutional and outside the traditions of the United Kingdom. Indeed, I think it was the brainchild of Anthony Wedgwood Benn—or, as he was fondly called by my Conservative opponents in those days, Viscount Stansgate. I believe that that criticism is still valid. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made a valiant effort to counter the fact that it is a largely non-parliamentary approach. The better approach, in my view, is the parliamentary discussions that we have in this Chamber and at the other end. The cry that you hear from time to time that this has not been properly debated is simply wrong. The subject of the European Union has featured in just about every general election that I can remember. I well remember that William Hague—soon to be Lord Hague—foundered in 2001 by basing his campaign on saving the pound.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, must understand that it is not right to invoke our Irish colleagues, who have habitually, as part of their parliamentary process, used referendums from time to time. Nor is her aspiration right that a referendum will achieve a final say; I very much doubt that that will be the case. I look no further than the recent Scottish referendum. Most of us feel in our bones that there will be another coming along soon. Referendums, for the most part, seldom answer the question.
On the technical points, I agree that 16 and 17 year-olds, whose future we are here debating, should be part and parcel of the process, and I hope that the Government will think again. I also add to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, recognising that there are various constituencies in the United Kingdom. For the past few years I have had a very real interest in financial services in this country. What of the 300,000 or so French people in this country, most of whom work successfully in the financial services sector?
The referendum is simply the wrong approach. I shall illustrate that. I recently chaired a meeting on the mortgage credit directive and I was surprised how reluctant our financial services were—it was backed by a speaker from the Financial Conduct Authority—to see the opportunities in the single market for our highly developed mortgage credit industry to penetrate the single market of 28 countries. Colleagues were surprised when I made that point.
Our habitual stance is defensive. We worry that we will lose something by conceding to other colleagues—the other 27. The truth is, if you go as a group of friends to the cinema, somebody chooses the film one week and somebody else chooses it another. That is the way that friends, colleagues and companions work. It is the sensible way that is recognised by most of us. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will speak later in the debate. In his pivotal position I am sure he will know, understand and recognise when I say, on a recent parliamentary visit to Romania, they were astonished that we were contemplating leaving the European Union. I am sure that that is replicated by the noble Lord’s experience.
We also adopt the wrong tone. When Mr Juncker was proposed as Commission president, we found ourselves with the Hungarians as the only other one opposed. Why, for goodness’ sake? When we recently had in 2011 the budgetary discipline Bill, which was to be incorporated in national states throughout the European Union, we again prevented our 27 colleagues from achieving that.
The referendum comes at the wrong time. We propose to finish this by late 2017. That is when the French and Germans will have major elections, and, folly upon folly, when, in the second part of 2017, we will hold the UK presidency. We have recently passed a law that will prevent a UK Minister coming out and explaining to the people what was discussed and decided, because of the idea of purdah that should be laid across us and which was encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. How strange.
What do the Government actually want: ever closer or ever looser union? It is very unclear. They also say from time to time, when they lift the curtain, “We’d like greater work done between the national parliaments” —of which we are a major chamber—“throughout the European Union”. No one can disagree with that, but physician, heal thyself: just look to the other end of this corridor and see how poorly we understand, scrutinise and develop European Union strategies—except, of course, in the House of Lords, which is, in its European Union Committee, pre-eminent in studying these things carefully.
We also say that we are opposed to the red tape that is supposedly launched on us. Timmermanns, deputy to Juncker, has been given the job of preventing useless proposals coming to the EU. In this country, we know that UK gold-plating encourages red tape. You never hear the argument made by a Minister that the biggest slasher of red tape to help businesses is the project of the single market of the European Union. That is the attempt to reduce from 28 different sets of legislation to an understandable single set which is then promoted. Who is the author of that but a noble Lord who sits in this House, Arthur Cockfield?
There is one other exception apart from Schengen that we do not recognise in this country. We are the only monoglots in the European Union. Everyone else has to learn English. We have to make a better effort at understanding other countries, in making sure that we communicate better with them, by not always using the English language. It would be a great benefit to David Cameron if he could speak a few words of other people’s languages.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly speak another language: my home is in France, so I can tell the noble Lord that all is not lost.
I start by saying that I warmly welcome the Bill and warmly commend the Prime Minister for saying clearly that fundamental reform of the European Union is needed. So far, it is not entirely clear what reforms he has in mind. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us in her wind-up speech today. The problem is that if it is not made clear, it will come to be believed—quite wrongly, I am sure—that he is engaged in a fishing expedition and that whatever fishes he happens to catch, whatever tiddlers they may be, he will say that that is what he always wanted. It would not be good for the negotiation if that impression were to get about.
The bottom line is that the European Union is a political project, not an economic project. That is not a disgrace, but it is a fact. It is a political project known as “ever closer union”. It is a project which we do not share. The Prime Minister says that he wishes to have an opt-out from ever closer union. In a sense, we already have one. The fact that we are not members of the eurozone—we have retained our own currency and have not accepted the euro—shows that we do not accept it, but actually an opt-out for the United Kingdom, even if it is formally stated, is totally meaningless. What is needed is for the European Union explicitly to resile from ever closer union—the creation of a united states of Europe—as its objective. Otherwise, as long as the European Union maintains this objective, there will continue to be European Union legislation to which we are subject, whether or not we formally have an opt-out from ever closer union. That is a meaningless phrase.
It should not be too difficult for the European Union to resile from that objective because, although it is profoundly desired by the European elites, it is not desired by most of the peoples of Europe. Indeed, one of the least attractive and most pronounced characteristics of the European movement is a contempt for democracy. The existence of a democratic deficit within the European Union has been well acknowledged on all sides.
Of course, there is a counterpart to this democratic deficit, which might be called a bureaucratic surplus. It is a particular problem for this country. The regulatory burden imposed by membership of the European Union in the case of the United Kingdom has been calculated to cost something like £25 billion a year. That is a huge burden and no economic advantages outweigh it. I have no doubt that overall the European Union does more harm economically than good for member states as a whole, not just for this country. That is perhaps not surprising because, since it is a political venture, whether there is an economic benefit would be purely coincidental. You only have to look at the performance of the European Union, particularly the eurozone, to see that it has not been a howling economic success.
It is said that by leaving the European Union we would still be bound by European Union regulations but would no longer have any influence over them. That is tosh for two reasons. First, while we have never had as much influence over European Union regulations as we fondly believe, since crossing the watershed of the creation of the eurozone our influence is dramatically diminished and will diminish further. There is now a eurozone bloc vote, which means that we have been and will continue to be overruled time and time again. Secondly, 85% of our GDP has nothing to do with the European Union. Our exports to the European Union are roughly 15% of our GDP, and the other 85% is either the domestic economy or exports to other countries. Although we would certainly have to accept European Union regulation when trading with the European Union—just as we must accept American regulation when trading in the United States, which our banks do a great deal—the great bulk of our economy would not be bound by this morass of European Union overregulation.
It is also said that outside the single market we would be unable to export to the European Union. Of course, that, too, is tosh. Exports to the European Union from outside it have in fact, over the past five years, increased by twice as much as exports from the United Kingdom to the rest of the European Union. In any event, I have little doubt that outside it we would be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union. The United Kingdom even now is a £300 billion a year market for the rest of the European Union. That is exactly the same as the rest of the European Union sells to the United States. We are massive, and that is why comparisons with Norway do not really apply. We would do a far better deal than Norway could because of the size of the UK market, which is so important to the rest of the European Union.
I recall that many people in business and banking said that if we did not join the euro and stayed with sterling it would be a disaster for the United Kingdom. They now say exactly the same about membership of the European Union. The same suspects say exactly the same thing. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. Let us not be afraid. There will be a whole lot of scare stories. We have heard some today. Above all, let us not be little Europeans. Let our horizon be global. The future growth of the world economy is going to happen much more outside Europe, as countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere grow faster as they gradually catch up with the western world. We in this country have better worldwide links because of our history—and, to some extent, the language, but they are interconnected—than any other country in Europe. Let us concentrate on them. The time has come to rediscover our national self-confidence, to abandon a political project that we do not share and to embrace a global future.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, in the limited time available I want to concentrate on the franchise proposed in the Bill. Last Friday, as part of the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme, I spent an extremely interesting hour with the sixth form at Sir Thomas Rich’s School in Gloucester. The students were articulate, informed, inquisitive, mature, enthusiastic, committed and challenging—above all, they were clearly ready and willing to be full citizens in our democracy. In short, they were typical 16 and 17 year-olds. They were more knowledgeable than many of their 60, 70 or 80 year-old fellow citizens and they were quite ready to compete in debate with Members of Your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I think they would well match the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby.
I see that the noble Lord is in robust good health but I venture to suggest that the young citizens in Gloucester are likely to have longer experience of the outcome of this vote than he will. That is the big difference. When it comes to the referendum on the future of this country—as part of the European partnership of nations or adrift in the Atlantic—this age group will have a far greater personal, long-term interest than most of us here. It is unthinkable that they should be refused a vote. I do not have much time but I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I think it is deplorable or regrettable to have it suggested, as has been done on a number of occasions, that those of us of a certain age are not concerned about the future. Most of us are deeply concerned about the future, particularly those of us who have children and grandchildren.
Lord Tyler
I agree entirely with the noble Lord and I am absolutely concerned about the future of my children and grandchildren, as I am sure are other Members of your Lordships’ House, but that does not in any way weaken my point.
It is unthinkable that these young people, whose future is so much at stake, should be refused a vote. The Intergenerational Foundation has pointed out already how top-heavy our democracy is—as is, indeed, our demography. The argument that has been used in the past, that this age group is immature, ill-informed and not interested, is belied by the hard facts of 18 September 2014, which put paid to those objections. As noble Lords will know, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, my right honourable friend Michael Moore, negotiated the inclusion of this cohort in the franchise for the Scottish referendum. He persuaded his colleagues in the coalition Cabinet that this was a choice of such long-term significance—with little likelihood of early review or reversal—that they had to be involved.
They rose to the challenge: 109,593 registered, 75% of them voted and already the comparison has been made with the 54% of the later age group of 18 to 24 year-olds who turned out and the 72% of those in the 25 to 34 year-old cohort. As has been said often in this House, they debated the issues with great intelligence and personal integrity, ignoring vested interests. One of the best witnesses of that is the leader of the Conservatives in the Holyrood Parliament. Moreover, they seem to have voted with more balance and maturity, rejecting the myths of the separatists, unlike many middle-aged men in Scotland.
Ministers in both Houses have failed so far to produce any rational objection, having accepted it in the Scottish case, to the inclusion of these new citizens in the decision-making process. This morning I reread the Hansard for the debate in the other place and searched in vain for any explanation for this extraordinary position. The most moving speech in the other place was by Dr Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Totnes, who argued that there should be a free vote on this issue. I noted today that a number of noble Lords in other parts of the House thought that might be appropriate. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about that.
Even in your Lordships’ House, this argument has been accepted on the similar referendum in Wales—that it should be on that extended franchise; with the help of my noble friend Lady Randerson, the coalition Cabinet agreed. More recently, on 15 July in this House, we accepted the strength of the case in relation to local authority elections by voting for the amendment that I moved to the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, with a majority of 221 to 154. Of course, it has already been fully enacted for local elections in Scotland.
I have no doubt that the claims of EU citizens working and living here, together with UK citizens working and living in other EU countries, will be successfully argued in the coming weeks in your Lordships' House. I hope so. Our conference a few weeks ago overwhelmingly voted for an amendment, to which I spoke, to support them.
However, the clearest case of all is that of young citizens whose future will be so dramatically affected by the huge implications of the referendum decision. Is this choice any less long term in its significance than that on the ballot paper on 18 September 2014 in Scotland? I dare Ministers to explain why Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17 year-olds are mature enough, interested enough and well informed enough to be allowed to vote for their futures but their English and Northern Irish counterparts are not. Ministers are fond of citing the essential elements that keep the United Kingdom united. What could be more significant that that solid building-block of our democracy, the franchise? Surely that is one of the things that holds the United Kingdom together. Can they really justify one electorate for Scotland and Wales and another for England and Northern Ireland?
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said at the beginning that what is in the Bill is a starting point and basis for the franchise. I put it to your Lordships' House that we have to move from that starting point into a much more logical and rational position. It is unthinkable that Ministers should ignore the hint that even the Prime Minister has given that we will have to move in this direction, and I hope that they will recognise that they should accept the inevitable.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, I know that I am right in saying that I am the only living Conservative remaining who voted against joining the Union in 1971, when the decision was taken in the House of Commons on the principle of joining. The Government of the day had a huge majority in favour; a few months later, on the Bill itself, that was diminished to a majority of four. So I think that I have the right to say, “I told you so”, because everything that I feared has, little by little, turned out to be more or less right. I did not take that stand lightly; I held a full referendum in my constituency, which I paid for, which was overwhelmingly against joining. A great deal of argument had gone on, on both sides, before the vote was taken.
I was not satisfied just to go by the result of the poll because that would not have been democratic, in my view. I then visited the four major cities and four different members to speak to people—they were twinned with Gloucester at the time—to find out about them and see what their views were of living in what was then a fairly new form of government. It is a form of government because it governs us and does so throughout. The most important thing to be established before any referendum takes place and before the Government give any advice about the outcome of the negotiations is to know what bottom line they are negotiating for. They need that to be known by those who oppose them. That is the fundamental requirement before the whole referendum takes place.
I fear that so many of the things that one dreaded happening have happened rather quietly and through the back doors. There have been endless, ghastly regulations, debated for long periods in the common market itself and then negotiated once again in this country for long periods, none of which has brought any benefit to the people of this country. There have been stupid regulations. In a recent one, especially at a time when payday loans are such a problem, it was forbidden in regulations to put the cost of the loan in money figures. It had to be done only by means of the AER. How many Peers could stand up at this point and say what the AER is? I cannot see any volunteers. That meant that people entering into small loans could not see the actual cost of the loan in money terms. We renegotiated and renegotiated over years, and at last we can now put the actual cost of a payday loan, although we can do it only on the basis that it is printed in letters smaller than the printing of the AER. That is just typical. It is not in itself a huge issue or one of the great things, but I assure noble Lords that there are many more such stupid regulations that we have had to adopt over the years.
The stupid assumption that this has been some huge advantage to us in terms of trade has been waylaid by my noble friend already, who said that in fact probably less than half our total imports and exports are affected by the European Union. I understand that at the moment we are negotiating for a special trade agreement with the United States. I am sure that if that were achieved it would be of great value to this country, if not exclusively, and would certainly sit alongside our membership without any problems whatever as the two would not cut across.
At this stage, I do not know whether I want a come-out solution. Nobody knows that because they do not know what will be achieved at the end of the negotiations—or even what they want to be achieved. It is quite right that that should be an open decision throughout people’s prospects. So many people we have known for years and who have not had strong feelings now say, “I want to come out, I only want to come out and there is no other thing that would be satisfactory”.
I personally identify very much with all the views strongly expressed by our Foreign Secretary, who was here earlier. They give very little way to anything other than what I imagine we want as our bottom line. I will want them to be adhered to throughout negotiations of such importance. Finally, I congratulate this Government on being the first one since the inception of the Union, since the early vote when I voted against, to give this country the opportunity to see what we have gained, what we have lost and what we can improve—and, if we cannot improve it, get out. My congratulations remain firmly with the Government.
Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as an elected Member of the National Assembly for Wales who is married to an interpreter accredited to European Union institutions in pursuance of its co-official languages provision.
I warmly welcome the referendum and particularly the debate that will happen throughout the United Kingdom as part of it. After all, on this Bench my noble friend and I are veterans of at least three referenda on devolution and a possibly even more significant one on the opening of licensed premises on Sundays in parts of Wales that we both represented. I can also say that the question is absolutely unambiguous in both official languages of the National Assembly for Wales.
We will support any amendment which enfranchises 16 year-olds. We obtained that concession on the Wales Act before the Westminster election. It is totally inappropriate that there should be a different franchise between a referendum on one issue and a referendum on another.
Like my noble friend, I am a veteran of the 1975 referendum, where I must confess publicly—not for the first time—that I voted on the wrong side. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for whom I once worked in pursuance of his bilingual policy, is surprised by that. In those days, the party of which I am still a loyal member in this House and elsewhere had a strange slogan, which I am sure my noble friend will remember. We had a car sticker which read, “Europe yes, EEC no”. I believe that it was subsequently withdrawn because it was not clear to the electorate what it might mean. My noble friend was on the right side in those days, being more perspicacious than I was. I have tried to make up for it since.
Renegotiation is not a one-off process. It was not something that happened in 1975, then occasionally when there were treaties to be agreed later and is happening again now. The European Union is constantly in a process of negotiation. I remember very clearly, after voting on the wrong side in 1975, my first visit to the European institutions as an elected Member from down the corridor. I met Irish colleagues and was laughed at out loud for taking such a view. My experience as an elected Member here in Westminster and in Cardiff is one of strong, continual co-operation between elected colleagues in the Republic and in the north of the island of Ireland. Particularly in the area of agriculture and fisheries, they have common policies which are part of a renegotiated European policy. Being able to work alongside other parliamentary and Assembly colleagues in different regions of Europe has been the most pleasurable part of my life—apart from coming to this House, of course; I have to say that.
Before devolution, led most ably by Peter Walker when he was Secretary of State for Wales and by other Secretaries of State, there was a policy that ensured that Wales was alongside much more powerful so-called “motor regions” in the European Union. Welsh local authorities played a key role. The National Assembly is now an active member of the Committee of the Regions. My colleague, the reverend Rhodri Glyn Thomas, will be delivering an opinion yn Gymraeg—that is, in the Welsh language; as I mentioned, the Welsh language is a co-official language—on marine energy in the Committee of the Regions this week. During my period presiding over the National Assembly, I was privileged to be part of the standing conference of European regional assemblies, where we shared experiences of our constitutional framework.
The renegotiation in the previous Parliament—the current Assembly for us—of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy is a very good example of the way shared competences, even exclusive competences, of the European Union are constantly reconsidered, re-examined and redeveloped. This is the way the Union operates. On energy policy and the environment, on the major question of climate change and on transportation we have this understanding of the need to create a European infrastructure. This applies across the Union.
The current renegotiation is but part of a story. Let us not delude ourselves that this will be the final decision. In the development of constitutions there is no such thing as an end game. Constitutions in democracies continually develop and redevelop. It is because of that that participation is the key issue: discussion and debate. This is how these unions develop.
For me, perhaps the most important aspect of the debate about the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is the debate on identity and nationality. I wear a badge constantly —it is my anti-UKIP device—which has the European Union flag and, of course, the red dragon of Wales, currently much displayed on the football and rugby fields. I have to say that because I suspect that my colleague is on his way to support the national team tonight. No doubt, that is why I am speaking in this debate.
The identity of Wales is of a European region: a nationality within the United Kingdom and within the European Union. When I presided in Cardiff and chaired the Assembly Commission, I had one major responsibility —for flagpoles. I ensured that we had four flagpoles, one with the logo of the Assembly, and others with the European Union flag, the United Kingdom flag and the red dragon. The key thing about those flags is that they always flew at the same level. For me, identity is pluralistic. I am not a member of a particular nationality; I am also a Welsh European. I believe in subsidiarity and in sharing competences and understanding. That is nothing exceptional. It is the world that I was born into in 1946. I want to ensure that it will be the world of my grandchildren as well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I noticed that in her opening remarks on behalf of the Liberal party, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said that we could be Norway or Switzerland. I say to the noble Lord, let us just be Britain and make a success of Britain in a global marketplace.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing forward the Bill, which gives the British people the opportunity to decide this question, which has been denied them by the parties opposite for far too long. Her timing is particularly brilliant, for, had she lived, this would have been Baroness Thatcher’s 90th birthday. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Hunt, whom I served as a Minister of State—he was one of the best Secretaries of State I worked for, if not the best; I learned a great deal from him—that I do not think that had Lady Thatcher been here today he would have gone in for the selective quotation that he did in his speech. I am not quite sure how she would have reacted to being described by—what are they called? The BSE campaign, an odd choice of name—Britain Stronger in Europe as a quitter. I am not sure that Margaret Thatcher ever was a quitter.
On the subject of quitters, when the campaign was launched yesterday a number of Members of this House were present—my noble friends Lord Rose and Lady Brady, and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—decrying the quitters. Well, they seem to have quit the field today because they are not here to make their case, which is absolutely extraordinary. The noble Lord, Lord Rose, talked about leaving the community being,
“a leap in the dark”.
He certainly knows about big leaps because he has leapt from being involved in Business for Britain to being involved in business for Brussels. A rose by any other name does not smell as sweet in this case.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
But it was nice to see Mr Blair and Mr Brown united on something, was it not? Of course, we all owe Mr Brown a great debt because if Mr Blair and most of the other people who are involved in this campaign to keep us in the Union had had their way, we would be in the euro, our economy would be on its back and millions of people would be unemployed. The euro has proved to be the engine of destruction of the jobs of young people throughout Europe. The extraordinary thing is that it took until last week for the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, to finally admit that he was wrong about the euro, while defending it in the face of all the tragic evidence before us of what a disaster that has been—a disaster because it is a project that has been driven by political expediency rather than the needs of the European peoples.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Just to have the record straight, it was Gordon Brown who kept us out of the euro.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is exactly what I said. The noble Lord will be speaking later in the debate and I urge him to listen to some of these arguments in the hope that he may be converted as a result.
Of course, the other person who was there on display was Danny Alexander. I am told on good authority—I have read it in the newspapers—that Mr Brown and Mr Blair, and indeed John Major and Danny Alexander, have been offered places in this House and have turned them down. Instead, they prefer to argue outside Parliament. Is that because they realise what all of us in this House realise, that Parliament is becoming increasingly marginalised and what we decide here does not matter because it is done by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels? That is the most important point that my noble friend Lord Lawson made. This is an argument about accountability, the authority of Parliament and Britons’ ability to take decisions for themselves.
I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson about the scare stories that came out around the time of joining the single currency. Do your Lordships remember? Frankfurt was going to become the financial centre of Europe if we did not join the single currency. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat talked about the Scottish referendum. In the Scottish referendum we started off with only 28% in favour of independence. We ended up with 45% being in favour of independence because we stupidly ran a campaign in which we told the Scots that they were too small, too wee and too poor to be able to be independent. We threatened them with scare stories. Far be it from me to give advice to those who wish to stay in Europe but if they campaign in this way they will drive people into the other camp. British people are not going to be told that they are too little and too lacking in enterprise and ability to be able to make their way in a global world, where they see a European Union which cannot even manage its own borders, let alone its own money.
Very disappointingly for those who wish us to stay in the European Union, we heard that the Labour Party was unanimous—it is amazing it is unanimous on anything—at its party conference on the idea that it would vote to stay in regardless of the negotiations. We heard the same from the Liberal Back Benches. What kind of negotiation is it that you go into battle waving a white flag? It is extraordinary that they should say, “Whatever you agree to, we are going to vote for it”. I have never heard such nonsense.
Turning to the Bill, my noble friend very kindly agreed that she had given an undertaking in cross-party meetings throughout the House. Might I suggest that those undertakings given by her and Ministers in the other place should be put in the Bill so that there is no doubt whatever about the Government’s commitment? I look forward to hearing the arguments against that in Committee. One of the most important was that we would have four months’ notice of a campaign which would last 10 weeks. I also urge my noble friend to consider producing a White Paper setting out the results of this negotiation, whatever it is about. I know that the ever closer union features in it. I voted for the Maastricht treaty—none of us is perfect. One thing that persuaded me to vote for it was that John Major was able to change the terms and get us various opt-outs, substituting “ever closer union” for “federal union”. So those words were put into the treaty by us to mitigate it, and we are now told that getting those words out of the treaty will somehow deliver a new paradise. It is nonsense.
Clause 6 effectively gives the Government the power by regulation to reinstate purdah; it enables them by regulation to change the rules regarding purdah, which could get us back to a situation where purdah did not apply. In the Bill as it stands, purdah does not apply to Scotland or the European Union. So are we going to have Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond campaigning, using public money in Scotland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom? That loophole needs to be dealt with, as does the loophole that purdah applies only to publications and not to government advice.
Finally, on the subject of Scotland, can we scotch the myth that if Britain votes to leave the European Union, somehow the United Kingdom will dissolve? All the evidence is that the Scots follow the English on this matter. If Britain votes to leave the European Union, Scotland will. Those who say that it will precipitate a referendum should look at what Nicola Sturgeon is saying this very week—that a referendum on Scotland’s independence is inevitable. Once it was “once in a generation”, and then “if there is a change of circumstances”; it is now, “it is inevitable”—and it is inevitable, she says, when she thinks that she can win it. So let us leave Scotland and the United Kingdom out of this and as a United Kingdom work together for Britain’s interests, which do not lie in remaining in this failed state that is the European Union.
Lord Radice (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on his usual, vigorous House of Commons speech. He made it with great skill and a lot of very good jokes. I also refer to the 1975 referendum, mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I want to draw three lessons from that earlier referendum, which may possibly be of relevance to us today. The 1975 referendum was the brainchild of Tony Benn, as the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, said. When the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, first heard that Tony Benn was talking about a referendum, he called him in and said,
“I understand you are suggesting a plebiscite on the Common Market. You can’t do that”.
However, as the row inside the Labour Party over Europe grew in intensity, Wilson changed his mind. He turned to the referendum as a means of uniting a divided party—yes, we were divided—and remaining in the EU. As the Foreign Secretary, Jim Callaghan, had predicted, it proved to be a useful “rubber dinghy”.
David Cameron was against an in/out referendum in October 2011. He argued that such a complicated issue could not be reduced to a simple choice. He even imposed a three-line Whip against a Tory Back-Bench Motion in favour of an in/out referendum. However, under pressure from Eurosceptic Tory MPs in Parliament and from UKIP outside, in his Bloomsbury speech of January 2013, Cameron committed the Conservative Party to such a referendum. The conclusion that I draw from this bit of history is that both Wilson and Cameron had a referendum imposed on them not so much by a democratic groundswell from below but by pressure from within their own parties. That is the reality. Let us not be too high-minded about all this.
Secondly, on the renegotiation of the terms of entry, in 1974-75, Wilson’s tactics were to renegotiate the terms of entry. I remember it very well because I had just become a Labour Member of Parliament. The German Chancellor—we clearly always turn to the Germans when we are in trouble; it was Helmut Schmidt then—was able to help secure a renegotiation. In March 1975, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, remembers, Wilson and Callaghan announced that negotiations had been finalised, and highlighted an important deal for New Zealand lamb and butter and the way in which the UK budget could be related to the gross national product. I admit that this then had to be renegotiated by Margaret Thatcher.
My point relating to David Cameron is that, significantly, Wilson did not pretend that the negotiations had been a complete success. He claimed that he had achieved significant improvements and, on that basis, asked the British to vote in favour of remaining in the Community. I think that David Cameron has been reading back on this history. He appears to be following much the same path as Harold Wilson. He assured his party that he was negotiating a new settlement with our European partners. It is true, of course, that nobody, least of all our partners, is entirely clear what the new settlement entails. I think that, for understandable reasons, the Prime Minister does not wish to reveal his hand, least of all to his own Eurosceptic Back-Benchers, because we know exactly what they would do if he revealed this. However, we have the benefit of the Sunday Telegraph of 11 October, where it was suggested that there were four areas which the Government, again with the help of their German allies led by Angela Merkel, hoped to make progress. The four areas mentioned were: a UK exemption from the commitment to an ever closer union—we have mentioned that already; a statement that the euro was not the EU’s official currency—that is clearly a bow to the pound; a new “red card” system for national parliaments; and protection for the City of London and our membership of the single market. Like Wilson, Cameron has had to accept that there are not going to be any early treaty changes.
It is quite clear that it is going to be very difficult for David Cameron to represent a package along these lines as a complete success, given the way the terms have been ratcheted up all the time by the Eurosceptics. But if Cameron follows the Wilson example of claiming only a limited victory—that is what I advise him to do—and follows this up, like Wilson, with a call to vote for staying in, this could in fact be an effective approach if, as I think, he wants to stay in.
In any case, in 1975, it was not so much the detailed but more the fundamental questions that decided the two-to-one outcome in favour. The British people voted to remain in partly for economic reasons and partly for political reasons. They believed that staying in would give us greater influence, while outside we would have little say in European affairs; and I think they were right. In other words, outside we should be clinging to the shadow of British sovereignty while its substance had flown out of the window.
As in 1975, I predict that whatever we hear from the boffins of the Eurosceptics such as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, these more fundamental issues will decide the referendum. Those of us who wish to stay in will emphasise the benefits of the single market. That will be an absolutely key issue. Secondly, we will also emphasise the additional clout which being a member of the EU brings to this country. Incidentally, the reason that the TTIP negotiations are going on is because we are a member of the EU. It is the EU that is negotiating TTIP, not Britain alone. We will also point out that those who want to leave have totally failed to offer a credible alternative—I am sorry, but I have not been convinced by anything I have heard in this debate. We are told by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that a “no” vote would not risk the break-up of the UK as well. I wish I was as certain as him on that, but of course he is an expert on Scotland and I am not.
In conclusion, the British people, when they consider these deeper, vital questions, will, as in 1975, vote to remain a member of the European Union.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, when we debated the Private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament, I made a number of contributions on matters relating to the franchise. It seemed to me that who would be entitled to vote was a very important matter and that simply to use the parliamentary register raised some questions of principle.
Clause 2 of this Bill confirms that the referendum will use the parliamentary franchise, although with some additions, as did that Private Member’s Bill. A vote will go to: British citizens living in the UK; Irish citizens resident in the UK; citizens of Gibraltar; Commonwealth citizens who meet the residency requirement for registration as an elector in the UK; British citizens who are overseas voters using their entitlement to register as overseas voters for up to 15 years after leaving the UK; service voters; and, now, Members of the House of Lords. In addition, Commonwealth and Irish citizens who would be entitled to vote in European elections in Gibraltar are also entitled to vote in this referendum.
This means that citizens of other EU countries resident in the UK who are eligible to vote in local government, devolved legislature elections and European Parliament elections may not vote in this referendum even though they were able to do so in the Scottish referendum last year if resident in Scotland. To add further complexity, EU citizens from Cyprus and Malta resident in the UK can vote as Commonwealth citizens even though they cannot vote as EU citizens. In addition, Irish citizens resident in the UK can have a vote even though they are not in the Commonwealth.
I have come to the conclusion that all UK passport holders living outside the UK and at the very least those now living elsewhere in the EU should have the right to vote in the referendum, however long they have lived outside the UK. At present, a 15-year limit applies. The reasons for that number of years seem arbitrary. Indeed, the Government recognised this and made it clear that they are committed to abolishing the 15-year rule. I welcome that but cannot understand why the votes for life Bill cannot pass the legislative process in time to enable those restricted by the rule to be able to vote. Surprisingly, I read that a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that the 15-year rule will remain in place for this referendum even if the votes for life Bill is passed before the referendum takes place. So the legislation would be in place but would not be implemented for this referendum, which is now likely to take place in 2017—up to two years from now.
I hope that the Minister in replying will be able to explain whether a clear commitment from the Conservative Party manifesto is to be jettisoned for this referendum when there is time to implement it.
There is a further issue of principle. On balance, I think that Scotland was correct to extend the right to vote in last year’s referendum to resident non-UK EU citizens. If I have a criticism of the decision, it is that it excluded all the Scottish voters who lived outside Scotland. That is because the parliamentary electoral register was not used. I should have preferred that both registers were used.
I accept that, in 2013, the European Parliament reported that EU countries did not permit the right to vote to other EU citizens in their national elections. The UK and Ireland were the exception to that, with nationals being able to vote in the other country on a reciprocal basis. The UK was also exceptional given that it permits votes for resident citizens of Cyprus and Malta as Commonwealth citizens. In a further piece of work, the Citizenship Observatory surveyed electoral rights in EU member states, and it seems that other EU member states do not grant foreign nationals a vote in national referendums either. If the UK took the same line, it would of course prevent Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens from voting. As it is not the Government’s intention to do that in the Bill, I find it hard to understand why citizens of some EU countries have special rights. It seems to me a matter of fairness.
Many EU nationals, not just those from the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta, have settled in the UK. They work here and pay taxes here. They have a real stake in the outcome. We must think very carefully about whether it is fair to exclude them when three EU countries’ citizens are not excluded. The principle that should apply is that those who could be directly and personally affected by the outcome should be entitled to have a say in the decision. The many UK citizens—about 2 million—who live elsewhere in the EU, and the many EU citizens, about 2.4 million, who live in the UK are right to be worried by the possible exit of the UK from the EU. It is no surprise that significant numbers are said to be considering dual nationality. If we left the EU, work permits could return, more people could have to apply for skilled migrant visas, reciprocal health schemes could be reduced, the operation of UK state pensions could be affected and the general ease of mobility for UK citizens across the EU would become much more complicated and uncertain. I wonder whether the Government have calculated the impact if large numbers of UK citizens decided to return to the UK in the event of our exit from the EU.
Finally, the Prime Minister has said that the franchise should remain at 18 for the referendum, but he also said that it was an issue for Parliament to decide. My view is that the Scottish referendum demonstrated convincingly the value of permitting 16 year-olds to vote and, given the implications for 16 year-olds if there was to be a vote to leave, we should lower the voting age. Sixteen year-olds have a right to be involved as their future will be affected.
In conclusion, I hope that it will be possible to explore all these issues in Committee; they matter.
Airports: London
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will now announce the date on which they will make public their decision about an extra runway for the London airport system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s position on airports capacity has not changed since the Airports Commission published its final report in July. The Government are currently reviewing all the evidence before coming to any final decision. As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister has said that a decision will be made by the end of the year.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Heathrow is now full? Is he further aware that whatever decision is taken about the future of that airport, it is likely to be challenged in the courts? Is it not therefore sensible that, from an aviation point of view, a decision to publicise should be taken as soon as possible, preferably this afternoon before the six o’clock news?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is for the very reason that my noble friend has articulated—the importance of making a considered decision which is not subject to judicial review—that the Government are fully considering all the evidence in the commission’s report and will report on their final decision in due course.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
Does the Minister appreciate that while we prevaricate over the choice of the extra runways, Paris, Schiphol and Frankfurt are going ahead inevitably and inexorably? Are we not paying a very heavy price for the delay that is happening at the moment? I am delighted that, as former Ministers with responsibility for aviation, the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, and I both have no doubt about what should happen.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point about retaining the competitiveness of London alongside those who are competing for business across Europe. He referred to his experience and that of my noble friend. It is for that very reason that I am sure he would agree that the Government need to ensure that they make a considered response that is not open to judicial review.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Can the Minister give us the benefit of his best guess about which happy occurrence will happen first—the building of the third runway at Heathrow or the publication of the Chilcot report?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
One thing I have learned in my time as a Minister is that guessing results in a very short time in office. Guessing and speculation are not advised for any Minister.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I was at a meeting this morning—it was part of a series of meetings—about statesmanship in the 21st century, stemming from the Churchill 2015 events. It was attended by a lot of youngsters, and there were a lot of debates. One of the key attributes that those attending felt that statesmen in the 21st century should have is an ability to make rapid and concise decisions. This decision has now taken longer than World War I. If this decision is important for our nation, does the Minister not believe that we ought to make it, as was said, before the evening news?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I am sure the noble Lord recognises, World War I was not based on a report. In this instance, the Prime Minister who leads the current Government initiated this report during the previous Government in 2012. It is an independent report. The commission took evidence. There were more than 70,000 respondents, and it is only proper that the Government should ensure that all options are carefully considered before they come to a final decision.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell your Lordships’ House how the date of the announcement about Heathrow will be influenced by the date of next year’s mayoral elections in London?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
All I will say to my noble friend is that, as I have said already, I would have a short ministerial career if I were to speculate on such things.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
Will the Government give an undertaking that when the decision about which airport is chosen is made and publicised, the effects on air quality and surface access will be covered in the same decision?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord will know, the issue of surface access has already been addressed. At Gatwick, for example, we have seen investment in a new station. He also raised the issue of air quality. That is very much part and parcel of the reporting of the Davies commission, and it will indeed form part of the Government’s response.
Lord Sugar (Non-Afl)
Will the Minister remind the House why the expansion of Stansted Airport was aborted? It has tremendous capacity and very good connectivity with the centre of town.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Stansted, like other airports around the country, is an important part of UK plc’s airport offering. As the noble Lord will also know, the Davies commission looked at many options, and it was after considering over 50 options that it whittled those down to what is recommended in the report. It is important when you commission a report that you consider its findings in detail and indeed reflect on those findings appropriately.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, I should perhaps declare an interest as a member of the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign. That said, does the Minister accept that this Government—and those who have gone before, unfortunately—have form on the issue of not taking decisions in a timely fashion on airport capacity? Does he further accept that the effect not just on the aviation industry but on the communities in the areas of those airports is baleful when these decisions are repeatedly delayed? They are put into a condition of virtual suspended animation, or worse, and many bad effects ensue. Will he assure the House that this Government are well aware of that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully aware of that. Indeed, the Davies commission’s report highlighted the importance of establishing a community engagement forum, and that will form part and parcel of the Government’s reporting on the report.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Will my noble friend assure the House that this decision will be made while both Houses are in session, and that it will be followed by full debate in each House of Parliament?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I look toward my noble friend the Chief Whip. I am sure that with his professionalism in these matters he will table debates accordingly.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, have the Government considered the possibility that in 30 to 50 years’ time hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians and others from developing parts of the world will be flying into Europe? Are we sure, with the nonsense of this Heathrow expansion, that it would actually be big enough? Would it not be better to go down the “Boris Island” route and have something proper built for the future?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure that my honourable friend in the other place has noted the noble Lord’s support for his proposal. People will be flying in from all over the world, as they do today and indeed as my father did from India 50 years ago. That will continue to happen 50 years from now. What is important is that the report highlights the options that we need to undertake up to 2015 and beyond.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. Is the Minister aware that by the time the first sod is to be turned on the new runway, wherever that may be, London Luton Airport will be well on its way to handling some 18 million passengers each year, providing substantial capacity to the London air transport system? What encouragement will the Government give to the further expansion of that airport?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I remind the noble Lord that I have already said that the Government are supportive of all our regional airports. We are investing in both the surface transport and the road network to ensure accessibility, and the statistic that he has just quoted underlines that particular support because it underlines that our regional airports are also expanding well in servicing UK plc.
Wales Act 2014
Baroness Humphreys
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the Wales Act 2014.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The Wales Act 2014 took forward the vast majority of the recommendations of the independent Silk commission. Business rates have now been fully devolved to the Assembly. The Government are taking forward the devolution of stamp duty land tax and landfill tax in time for April 2018. The Act will make the Assembly and the Welsh Government more accountable to people in Wales and enable them to support stronger economic growth.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
During the passage of the Wales Bill through this House, Members debated and agreed to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord German to allow the names of the first four candidates of each political party to appear on the ballot papers for the regional list in the Assembly elections in 2016. With fewer than seven months to go before those elections take place, can the Minister tell me by what means and by when this decision will be implemented?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, we intend to lay the draft order in Parliament later this autumn. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides that parties may nominate 12 candidates for each Assembly region. Ultimately it is for the Secretary of State to determine how this is reflected on the new regional ballot paper. The order prescribing this has already been shared with the Electoral Commission—as is normal—and with administrators on an informal basis with a view to the final draft being prepared and shared very shortly.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, reserved powers for the Welsh Assembly were not included in the original Wales Bill but they were very strongly endorsed in the St David’s Day agreement last February. Can the Minister tell us what the position is? Has this principle now come into effect?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, indeed, I can reassure the noble Lord that that is the case.
Lord Elis-Thomas (PC)
My Lords, is it the Government’s policy that any future Wales Bill that may appear from this Government will be taken to the Assembly and will seek the consent of a majority of Assembly Members for its content?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, indeed, I make it clear to the House that the Wales Bill will appear here before too long, although there are no dates. The objective is that there is going to be a clearer settlement in terms of setting out reserved powers—a reserved powers model. It will be a strengthened settlement and will deliver a fairer settlement through the introduction of the funding floor alongside the spending review, with the expectation that the Welsh Government will work with us to progress.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
The Minister will be aware that the requirement in Section 12 of the Wales Act for a referendum before the transfer of income tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly has been used as an excuse for delay. Will his Government use the forthcoming Wales Bill to remove this block and make the Welsh Government accountable for their gross failure in maintaining standards of education and health in Wales?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I cannot agree with the noble Lord in terms of delay because we think that it is right to get the agreement right. The Wales Act and the St David’s Day agreement empower the Welsh Government with the tools and levers that they need to grow the Welsh economy. We believe that the referendum is right as part and parcel of giving the Welsh people more say in terms of their powers.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, as this is a Welsh question and as I am a Welsh woman, the House would not want me to gloat or refer to anything relating to an oval ball. I would like to ask the Minister to respond to claims made by an eminent group of experts that the plans outlined in the Command Paper in the run-up to the new Wales Bill will not deliver the lasting devolution settlement that was promised by the Government. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance that there will be no attempt to claw back powers to Whitehall from Wales in the forthcoming Wales Bill?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will say, as was set out in the St David’s Day agreement by the Prime Minister, that this is a very important Bill that is coming up. It will enable the referendum to be held on the income tax devolution, and the Command Paper said that the funding floor would be introduced in the expectation that the Welsh Government would hold a referendum. So I can give these guarantees. These are important for the future.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister take no notice whatever of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford? Is it not a mark of respect for the people of Wales and in the spirit of devolution that the Welsh Assembly Government should be able to order their policies on health and education in the manner that they judge best and that is accountable to the people of Wales who have wished to elect a Labour administration?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That is exactly it; we believe that it is right to pass more powers on to the people of Wales. That is the main message that I want to give today.
Government Digital Service
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes in the Government Digital Service will follow from projected cuts in its budget and the departure of senior staff.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the future budget for the Government Digital Service will be determined in the spending review. The Government are 100% committed to the digital strategy set out in the previous Parliament and to the vision of government as a platform, so we can solve digital challenges once on behalf of all government. We will continue to strengthen the team in GDS and capability across government so as to transform the public delivery of services, making life easier for the citizen and cheaper for the taxpayer.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this was a Conservative initiative—from the noble Lord, Lord Maude—in the last coalition Government, which had active Liberal Democrat support and much wider support from those in the technological community outside, and that it has been so successful that, as the Financial Times reports today, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and Israel have modelled their approaches to digitisation on the British scheme? Now, since the chief executive has resigned, six senior executives have left the GDS in the last six weeks and there are increasingly worrying reports of what is going on. Can we have at least a Statement and preferably even a White Paper on the future of GOV.UK, or are we going back to piecemeal approaches by departments which were demonstrated to be so ineffective in the past?
Lord Bridges of Headley
First, I thank the noble Lord for what he did when he was in government in supporting the GDS. I can say that we are utterly committed and remain committed to the strategy that was set out in the last Parliament. Plans will be announced before Christmas that will set out our strategy. The plans to create government as a platform continue, and the noble Lord is absolutely right—from my own experience in the private sector it is right that the entire organisation continues to embrace digital technology and build government as a platform.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday we gave a Second Reading to the Enterprise Bill to help businesses, big and small. However, we know that on average businesses are losing 33 working days a year because of outdated government online services. This is where they need help. Can the Minister therefore tell the House whether the Cabinet Office is one of those departments refusing the cuts that other bits of the Government are trying to make to it, and what guarantees business can have that there will be no cuts to the Government Digital Service?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I may have been in this House a very short time but I think your Lordships would agree that it is probably more than my life is worth to start predicting the outcome of the spending review. However, I am delighted to use this opportunity, given that the noble Baroness has asked me this question, to remind the House and indeed the Treasury, should it be listening, that during the last Parliament £1.7 billion was saved thanks to digital transformation and the Government Digital Service cost £58 million. This is therefore a very good return on investment. Obviously, discussions continue, but I entirely share the noble Baroness’s view that we need to do more to support businesses.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that my noble friend Lord Maude, as he now is, did a brilliant job in transferring services that would otherwise be extremely expensive so that they are online? That has saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money. Is not the quid quo pro for that that people, particularly those in rural areas, have access to broadband? It is no good if you have to fill in your tax return or your claim for agricultural subsidies, or whatever it is, if you do not have a proper online service, and BT is not providing that service. It is not good enough to say that it should be available to 95% of the country—100% of the country should be able to access government services online.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I entirely sympathise and share this point of view, Headley being a place—at least in my mother’s house—that does not enjoy the full benefits of superfast broadband. However, I remind the House that the Government are investing over £780 million to bring superfast broadband to areas of the UK, total public investment is nearly £1.7 billion, and 3 million additional homes and businesses have superfast broadband available for the first time thanks to the Government’s investment. However, I entirely concede that more needs to be done.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, the Government Digital Service is a success thanks to the leadership of Mike Bracken and the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I wish them well in their new roles. However, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Digital successfully implemented is by definition risk taking and innovative, and the Civil Service is not famous for embracing risk taking or innovation. What are the Government doing to nurture the next generation of political intrepreneurs within departments, across government, to drive this innovation and achieve the improvements in quality at potentially lower cost that we can get out of digital?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point and the Government are very focused on this, as is the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office today has announced the appointment of a new chief people officer who will lead HR, and I am sure he will put this at the top of his agenda.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the GDS and GOV.UK have made a huge contribution to better government. We heard the Minister’s assurances about strategy, but can he give the House an absolute assurance that we are not going to return to a free-for-all where each government department sets up its own website again?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. During the previous Government a number of websites were shut down—scores indeed—some of which were competing against each other. I hope this is not a party-political point, but I think we have all learnt the lessons from the early days of digital. We need to make sure we continue on the approach we have set.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, the previous Government had an excellent record in promoting the use of open data in government. Can the Minister give an assurance that this Government will be equally vigorous in its use in this Parliament?
Lord Bridges of Headley
Absolutely, my Lords, and we need to continue to use our data better. It surprises me that we still have silos of data that we do not use and do not mine, and we need to continue to make the data more open and more available.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, one of the greatest challenges with digitisation is protecting personal data, and the ability to access government services is much easier when you can do that. Is any consideration being given to a card that will allow people to prove exactly who they are when they try to get this data?
Lord Bridges of Headley
As the noble Lord will know, there is a project underway led by GDS on Verify, but that is a very good point and I will draw it to the attention of GDS.
Primary Care: Targets
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will encourage general practitioners’ practices to employ nurse prescribers, nurse practitioners and pharmacists in order to achieve their seven day target for primary care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, broadening the skill mix within general practice is an important part of improving access for patients. General practices are including nurse prescribers, nurse practitioners and clinical pharmacists in their multi-disciplinary teams and experience suggests that this results in significant benefits for patients. Earlier this year, NHS England launched a £15 million scheme to fund, recruit and employ clinical pharmacists in GP surgeries.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that the GP shortage is made worse by the fact that a declining number of young doctors want to go into GP practice for various reasons, including pay, working hours and the volume of consultations? At the same time, we have a surplus of excellent young pharmacy graduates looking for jobs who would be very happy to go into clinical general practice. Is it not time for a new initiative to bring these two things together and ensure that doctors get the assistance of all these excellent young graduates?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that where general practices employ clinical pharmacists, it relieves GPs of a considerable burden. Interestingly, the NHS Alliance produced a report last week called Making Time In General Practice. It identified that up to one in six patients seen by GPs could in fact be seen by someone from a broader skill mix within general practice, so what the noble Baroness says makes a lot of sense.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, while one may applaud the intention of the 24/7 NHS service, does the Minister agree that the Government are potentially raising public expectations that are just not going to be achievable, given the deficit of nearly £1 billion that we have seen in the first quarter of this year alone?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the deficit in the first quarter is indeed a matter of huge concern—I am not going to pretend otherwise—but the Government are wholly committed to seven-day services both within hospitals and in general practice. We are committed to investing £10 billion extra in the NHS over the next five years, and ensuring that we have enough GPs and enough support for them is a key priority.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, before anybody is qualified to prescribe, the important part is that the correct diagnosis is made before the prescription is given? Having said that, does he think that qualified high-street pharmacists may have a role in prescribing, apart from the clinical pharmacists who are attached to general practitioners?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I fully accept, of course, that diagnosis is extremely important but I think that advanced nurse practitioners can play a role in diagnosis, as well as in treatment, as can physician associates, given that both are supervised by GPs. I believe that high-street or community pharmacists can play a big part in supporting the role of clinical pharmacists.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
The noble Lord will recall yesterday’s discussion about how the integration of care is crucial. I am absolutely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—this is what integration in the health service really means. Providing the opportunity for pharmacists in hospitals to work in those practices should be encouraged.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I completely agree with those comments. Over the next five years, we will see much greater integration of acute hospitals and primary care and community care.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, the suggestion has been made that nurses from overseas who are not earning £35,000 after five years will be deported. Does this mean that the Government are going to think again on this issue?
Lord Prior of Brampton
This raises an important point—that we ought to train our own nurses. Relying on recruitment from overseas is not a viable long-term strategy and we must increase the number of training places in the UK.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, in seeking to broaden the skills base in general practice, as the Minister has just said he wishes to do, will he consider encouraging GP practices to employ artists? Is he aware of the excellent outcomes for patients in GP practices that have an artist in residence?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the short answer is no. I do not think that I could stand here and promise funding for artists in GP surgeries, but I do have an open mind. If the noble Lord would like to talk to me about it outside the Chamber, I would be very happy to do so.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as the NHS has a problem with its cost base, rather than load GP practices with even more overheads, would it not be wiser to follow what a number of us experience in our own practices: much closer liaison between GP practices and local chemists, which account for only a partial amount of the NHS’s overheads?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My noble friend makes a very good point. There is an increasing and important role for high-street and community pharmacists in delivering healthcare.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of UCL Partners and as UK Business Ambassador for Healthcare and Life Sciences. What strategy do Her Majesty’s Government have to ensure that NHS prescribers can continue to provide innovative therapies and interventions for their patients?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I do not have an answer to give him today, but perhaps I may reflect on that and come back to him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, clearly the role of community pharmacists could be enormous in the future, but in the end we still need more GPs. I have yet to be convinced that the Government really do have a programme that will effectively make sure that current GPs stay in the profession and that new GPs enter it. Can the Minister confirm that a number of the seven-day working pilots involving primary care have had to be cut back because of a shortage of GPs?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I cannot confirm that a number of the pilots have been cut back because of a shortage of GPs. I assure the noble Lord that we are committed to having an additional 5,000 doctors and a further 5,000 professionals working in general practice by 2020. That is a key priority for the Government.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, the number of 80 year-olds today—3 million—is estimated to double by 2030. According to the King’s Fund, this will be the biggest challenge facing society. In particular, the issue of caring for frail, vulnerable adults with complex needs is crying out for attention. What future planning will the Government do to address this human bombshell?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord makes a very perceptive point. Demography is driving healthcare. The whole thrust of government policy is to treat as many people as possible outside acute hospital settings. Over the next five, 10, 20 years, I expect to see a far greater share of the health budget going to primary and community care, and a lower percentage to acute care.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, in view of the massive costs of agency staff working in the NHS, could not the Government consider setting up their own agency?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it is our intention —for all kinds of reasons; cost, safety and quality of care—to reduce our dependence upon staffing provided by agencies. We would much rather see staff employed on a permanent basis or through hospital banks.
Redcar Steelworks
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
With the leave of the House, I would like to repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend Anna Soubry earlier today in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, I begin by saying that the significance of yesterday’s announcement is not lost on either myself or any member of this Government, because we know and understand the profound implications it will have on Teesside. I also pay tribute to the honourable lady; she and I will not agree on this matter but I pay tribute to what she does, which is, as every good MP should, to fight for her constituents—and I know she does that. At the same time, I pay tribute to the honourable gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who I suspect will also fall out with me, for the work he has done on behalf of his constituents.
I say that it is not lost on me because it was an honour to go up to Redcar the other week and to meet a number of people at that time. We knew SSI was under huge, considerable difficulties. To set it into context, it had never made a profit, notwithstanding the outstanding workforce, which it undoubtedly is, and a lot of good will. To set it in perspective, the coking ovens were losing, on average, £2 million a month.
The official receiver accordingly was brought in on that Friday and, in his capacity as liquidator of SSI, announced that he had received no viable offers for the coke ovens or for the blast furnace following discussions with potential buyers and would therefore begin closing those facilities. The terminology is a “hard closure”, which is a tough closure as well, and this is not mothballing, so we have to be realistic as to the implications of that.
As I say, it is hugely regrettable news, both for SSI workers and their families and the local economy more broadly. Only this morning, I spoke to the chief executive of the local council, Amanda Skelton, who informed me that at least 50% of the people employed working in the ovens and blast furnace live in Redcar; so we are under no illusions as to the significance for that town. The Government remain absolutely focused on supporting those people who find themselves out of work as a result of SSI’s liquidation and, through a package of up to £80 million, we will continue to invest in them and the future of the Tees Valley economy. Safety, as you might imagine, is a top priority, and we will continue to ensure the official receiver has all the funding and support necessary to ensure a safe and orderly closure of these assets, working with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency. I would like to thank the official receiver for what he has done. I put on record not only my thanks but also the fact that he has been able, with the assistance of government, to keep the coking ovens going until yesterday’s announcement—and that was no mean achievement.
When I was last in Redcar, we were in the position where, just by way of example as to the serious nature of what had been going on, we discussed the possible sale of coke that might just raise, that Friday morning, £800,000 that might just buy some sulphuric acid to keep the power plant going. That was the hand-to-mouth existence—the reality of SSI. Not the local management, who struggled under the most difficult of conditions, but a reflection, unfortunately, of the Thai owners, notwithstanding all the welcome they had properly received when they bought this plant and the great hope that had been invested in them by the local community.
I would like to place on record my thanks to all those, including the community trade union, I had the great pleasure to meet when I was up there, as well as local authorities, local Members of Parliament and other stakeholders who have helped operate SSI’s facilities during this particularly difficult period and who have done so much to try to ensure there is a future for steelmaking in Redcar. Unfortunately, all that good work has come to nothing”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the closure of this site is a catastrophe for the local economy and for the local community on Teesside: 170 years of steelmaking were snuffed out yesterday. The Government are overseeing the loss of a national industrial asset while showing no willingness, as far as we can see, to step in and try to rescue it.
Steel produced in that area is surely part of an industrial strategy. One would expect any Government concerned about the future of the economy in this country to think more closely about our automotive, aerospace and construction industry needs and the relationship they have with steel.
Did the Government explore options for mothballing this site over a longer period to save the assets? Will the Minister confirm how much it will cost the taxpayer to clean up the site? As she mentioned, there are several concerns there about toxicity. Will she reflect on the fact that we are currently engaged on the Enterprise Bill, and in that Bill there may be an opportunity to look again at the question of Chapter 11 solutions when industries of national strategic importance get into trouble?
It seems to me that the Government are washing their hands of this and standing back when they should be taking a direct interest.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his many questions, and for his reference to the Enterprise Bill, on which we had a good debate yesterday. As I explained at the end of proceedings then, it has been difficult. The underlying problem is that the SSI operation has never made a profit. The scale of decline in steel around the world is enormous. The world is oversupplied, with overproduction at 30%. This figure appalled me. There are 200 million tonnes of excess tonnage in China, and EU production is 169 million tonnes. We have an enormous challenge.
The right thing is to look forward. That is why we have established a steel summit on Friday in Rotherham, which obviously goes wider than Redcar. The Secretary of State will be chairing it and Anna Soubry will be there, along with all the key outside players, including, obviously, steelmakers such as Tata and Celsa, the trade unions and experts, including Oxford Economics, who are able to look objectively at the global position and look forward to see what can be done.
Chapter 11 has its advantages in some other climes. I think we have debated this before. We find that the insolvency tends to end up being less efficient, particularly in the sort of circumstance we have here, where you have a big global problem. You have to look forward to different opportunities for an area.
Lord Brookman (Lab)
As an ex-general secretary of the union referred to by the Minister and an infrequent speaker in the Chamber, I am pleased that the Minister congratulated the union that I once led, under a different heading. I remember a debate in this Chamber many years ago about the future of manufacturing in the UK, which had particular relevance to the steel industry. It went down quite well—there were 19 speakers —but I was told by one of the inner crowd that we live in a post-industrial society, which implied that banking, the service sector and finance were the way forward.
The steel communities in this country, although there were 267,000 people in the nationalised industries in 1967, are very, very small. My home town in south Wales is decimated: the mines have gone, the steelworks have gone and times are tough.
If the Minister is running this conference next week, she should—please—apply her mind to keeping what is left.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and for his experience. I certainly agree that we should seek to preserve what is good. There are opportunities in the steel industry: there is HS2, if that happens; there is specialist steel; and we have a sector-led strategy on metals. We need to look forward in those areas and to small business creation in Teesside and in other ex-steel communities.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that £20 million of the £80 million that she says the Government are investing in Teesside is money that would be paid in any event in the form of statutory redundancy in a liquidation situation? Will she further say whether the Government, in the situation that they face in Redcar, would be prepared to consider a government-backed task force, as they did five years ago, to look at the diversification of the economy and would be prepared to consider additional funds to help that community if viable projects subsequently emerged?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, on the up to £80 million that is made available, how much goes on redundancy will depend on uptake, but we are clear that it will provide a lot of funds for training and reinvestment in skills—the sort of things that are needed and that are in the hands of the local task force that we have set up and did great work in 2010. The Prime Minister has said that, if necessary, we will look at this again, but we think that the £80 million will make a huge difference to the more than 2,000 unfortunate people who, if one takes all of them together, will lose their jobs—it is very disappointing. On a future task force, we are focusing this week on the summit and on the local task force.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Does my noble friend know that for the second Forth Bridge crossing, which was commissioned by the Scottish Government, the majority of the steel is being shipped from China? That suggests that there is a degree of uncompetitiveness or a degree of dumping of steel going on. Does my noble friend not acknowledge that one consequence of putting green taxes on high-energy-using businesses is to make them uncompetitive, leading us to import carbon from our competitors and to put our people out of work?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I am not sure that energy policy is the issue here. We have already paid £50 million in compensation under the Energy Intensive Industries Compensation Scheme. As my noble friend said, the issue is the lack of competitiveness, but I think some public organisations do this better. If one looks at Crossrail, one sees that it used a great deal of British steel in its concretes by way of the work that it did with the supply chain to encourage it to bid for work during that excellent project.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the north-east has faced issues like this before? When I became the Member of Parliament for North West Durham in 1987, Consett steelworks had closed. Ironically, one of the reasons that we were given for closing Consett was to keep things going in Teesside. We then faced a male unemployment rate in the region of 20%. It took years and years to begin to get people employed, and it was very difficult to get the quality of skills that they had been used to working with in the steelworks. This is a huge challenge to the local community and I really think that the Government have not taken it seriously enough. The summit in Rotherham will do nothing for Redcar.
The £80 million, as the noble Lord said, includes statutory redundancy costs, which is an outrage. Will the Government pay far more attention to what is going to happen to that community in Redcar, which is quite isolated? Unemployment in the north-east is already the highest in the country, and in the Tees Valley area it is probably higher than in the rest of the region. This is a real crisis for local people and the Government must recognise—in a way that, locally, they are not seen as having done so far—the impact that it will have on that local community and make sure that the opportunity for change and reconstruction of some manufacturing jobs is made more possible. That means working closely with the European Union as well with the local task force and the LEPs.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I do not share the negative view that was set out, but I agree that we need to look forward. We set out in our Statement yesterday a great number of the things that we are doing on reskilling and looking forward, as the noble Baroness suggested. We have taken action at the EU level to work with other member states who face similar challenges—the French, the Germans and the Luxembourgers—in fighting dumping, and some measures have been taken. But as I said, this is a real competitiveness issue and we need to look forward and find new opportunities in this important industry.
European Union Referendum Bill
(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this Bill is domestic legislation, so, while I have the honour of chairing your Lordships’ European Union Committee, I have no scrutiny locus to apply to it. Further, I am bound by the obligation of non-partisanship, and that is in any case very much the culture of my committee as a whole. I felt however that it might be useful to the House to outline our thinking in this crucial matter.
I do not plan to participate in the Committee stage of the Bill. I certainly have personal views on some issues that, judging from the debate this morning, are likely to be raised, and I am a self-confessed ex-serial amender of Bills. On technical issues, I shall confine myself to one comment: as the revised version of the ballot paper question now appears in subsection (4) of Clause 1, the wording both of the Long Title and of the first subsection could usefully be harmonised with it.
The substance of the Bill is of course very much not a technical matter, and as the decision is now being left to the British people as a whole, I do not intend to express any view on it on behalf of the committee, particularly ahead of substantive negotiations. I will concentrate, for the benefit of the House, on what I feel we can properly offer as your Lordships’ scrutiny committee.
The House will be aware that, just before the recess in July, we got in early with the report The Referendum on UK Membership of the EU: Assessing the Reform Process. We are taking this work forward into a new inquiry which we are about to launch, which asks: what are the issues involved? Is there any common vision of the reforms that are necessary in the European Union? At a more technical level, who is negotiating, and with whom? How are the various interests being addressed? What is the timetable, both for making decisions and for reporting back to Parliament and the nation on them?
It is clear that the process is far more complex and fraught with risk than the 1975 negotiations and referendum, which many here will remember. Then there were only nine member states, compared with 28 now; the transition period for the United Kingdom had barely begun; and the concept of devolved Assemblies—save for the Northern Ireland Assembly—was some way off. The European Parliament then was still directly appointed, in its infancy and relatively powerless.
The second emphasis in our inquiry is that this Government, in their understandable wish to develop their own position and to secure their negotiating objectives, might possibly put too little weight on some less obvious players and overlook some issues—for example, those of bilateral interest which could still derail the negotiation process.
Recent negotiation history over justice and home affairs matters, which caused such a flurry last year, is a warning bell here. As an example of an interest, the Irish Republic, with its involvement in constitutional issues affecting the island of Ireland and the unique land boundary with the United Kingdom, needs to be kept actively in play. More generally across Europe in my experience, we have many friends and we must cultivate them in what is bound to be a delicate game of three-dimensional chess. In playing this game, tone is extremely important.
Naturally, on behalf of the House, we are pleased that our Government’s emphasis is on an enhanced role for national Parliaments. This should not in our view be seen as downgrading or challenging the legitimacy of the European Parliament. If collectively as national Parliaments we aspire to an enhanced role, we must be allowed a forward gear as well as a purely negative role. Our committee has been active in this area. We recently submitted to the Commission, with the support of nearly half the Chambers of national Parliaments, the first ever green card initiative on the reduction of food waste.
We also, as a committee, insist on the transparency of the negotiating process. Of course, there must be scope for proper diplomatic leeway but, equally, an entirely closed process could risk a backlash of acceptability. Ministers have made explicit commitments to keep Parliament informed and we shall hold them to that. Then, as negotiations proceed, we shall be looking out for the extent to which the Government may legitimately claim to have fulfilled their own objectives, which centre around four issues, and equally for the legal certainty of any undertakings they have received. The nation must be clear about the basis on which it is voting, to reduce the scope for any future confusion or even recrimination.
In conclusion, I suspect that the small print which properly concerns us, as your Lordships’ scrutiny committee, will inevitably be swept up in the far bigger strategic issues of a national decision. I doubt, frankly, whether too many electors will be hanging on the details of some particular assurance as they decide how to place their own vote—and I would not expect to be doing so myself. In any case—this was touched on in the earlier stages of the debate—there is an inevitable asymmetry in the formal choice. We shall certainly be confronted at the referendum with a stay or leave choice on the basis of the negotiations that the Government are undertaking while, on the other hand, a national choice to leave at that referendum would trigger a fresh round of negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. The outcome cannot be known in advance of any application that would in turn have to follow the outcome of a referendum.
In the end, what we can offer as a committee is to inform this House and through it the people more generally as to some of the practical issues and implications. Ultimately, I would expect—and indeed, I think I would hope—that people will make their choice on the basis of these strategic issues involving our people, and in the decision whether they are best tackled through active membership or from outside.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London spoke earlier of the changing historical shape of Europe. I live part-time in Aquitaine in France—a region that was, of course, part of the kingdom of England for some centuries. Consequently, I frequently journey from here to there. During the time I have been doing that, I have developed a tremendous admiration for Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. She frequently journeyed to and fro on horseback, through strife and storms, often while pregnant. I am glad to say that my journeys are less arduous.
Aquitaine, like other parts of France and Spain, has tens of thousands of British expats living there. Can the Minister confirm how many UK citizens have lived abroad for more than 15 years and how many of them live in EU member states? These are the disenfranchised British people I want to talk about.
As the Minister made clear, the basis for this Bill is the Westminster franchise, but that is not fit for purpose for this referendum. It is quite illogical that it should be used because it is to do with local and national elections.
Among these British expats, many have worked in the UK for their whole lives—as teachers, soldiers, doctors, diplomats, bus drivers—and many still pay taxes in the UK because they get a UK government pension. Their children and grandchildren live and work in the UK. These people are deeply invested in the UK and care about its future. Of course, if they live in the EU, they are concerned about how the changes will affect their own future in a very direct way. However, their concerns run much deeper and wider than their own situation. I will quote a policeman, Philip Pearce, who retired from Somerset to France and said:
“I moved to France 20 years ago, living on a government pension from the police force. I have made my home here. Because I have a government pension I still have to pay income in the UK. I pay my income tax there like so many others with government pensions, but have no say in voting. Yes, perhaps this is reluctantly acceptable in normal elections, but not this referendum”.
That is one example. Another could be that of a young person who, after university, goes to look after a sick parent abroad. That parent, though ill, lingers on and that young person, despite long-term hopes of returning to the UK, has no vote. Somebody else, whose career takes them abroad—perhaps when they are 25—and who is still working abroad at 41, has now got small children and plans to return to the UK in the near future. This is quite a common pattern. Why should they not have a vote in the referendum when the rest of their lives will be invested in the UK?
In her opening remarks, the Minister said that the Government intend to pass their votes for life Bill, promised in the Queen’s Speech, in due course. I was glad to hear that. However, there is no saying that it will be enacted in time: in fact, it looks unlikely. Even if we follow the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to get on with it sooner rather than later, I doubt that the votes for life Bill will be enacted by 2016. So those hundreds of thousands of expats will have no say on the future of the EU.
The only way to solve this problem is to amend this Bill to include them. After all, if we can amend the Westminster franchise, as we intend to do, to include Members of your Lordships’ House, surely we can amend it to ensure with safety and certainty that those people whose future in the UK is as invested as ours have their say. This is what I intend to do in Committee.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly on changes made to the Bill and what is omitted. I do not propose to follow some noble Lords who have begun to fight the referendum campaign.
My starting point is one of scepticism in regard to the principle of referendums, but an acceptance that successive Governments have utilised them and that they are therefore part of our constitutional arrangements. What we are faced with is not the ideal, but it is the real.
We have rarely discussed the principle of referendums. A dislike of referendums is set aside when someone prioritises a particular issue of policy and sees a referendum as a way of achieving an outcome that otherwise may not be achieved. Governments have employed them on a disparate and discrete basis, with no set framework for determining their use. The Bill before us can be justified on the grounds that it addresses a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements and derives from precedent. As with the 1975 referendum, it is grounded in a manifesto commitment. However, it is not set within a clear, intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change. The danger is that we are developing a new constitutional framework without thinking through the consequences.
I turn to the specifics of the Bill. As introduced, it reproduced a problem of the 1975 referendum and, indeed, later referendums, but one that has now been corrected, but introduces a problem not present in 1975. As my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out in introducing the Bill, the Bill as initially introduced stipulated a yes or no response. When the then Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was going through this House, I drew attention to the bias involved in inviting a yes or no response. There is a natural tendency to want to appear positive, so there is a bias in favour of a yes response regardless of the question. Some referendums have, as we know, resulted in a no victory, sometimes a substantial victory, but that outcome might have been even greater had the burden of the question been reversed or electors offered a choice between two mutually exclusive statements.
The Electoral Commission previously favoured a yes/no question because of the ease of campaigning—one could have a vote yes and a vote no campaign. It has now changed its position, having undertaken consultation and research, and favours two statements. I welcome the change and the Government’s acceptance of the Electoral Commission’s recommendation. Subsequent surveys have shown that having a choice of statements, as opposed to a statement inviting a yes/no response, does affect how people vote. My concern is not with what their response is, but that the process itself is as neutral as possible. I therefore commend Clause 1(5), in the form it which it reaches us.
I turn to the problem not present in 1975. On that occasion, electors were invited to vote on the basis of the terms of membership renegotiated by the Government. The ballot question was preceded by the statement stipulated in the Referendum Act:
“The Government have announced the results of the renegotiation of the United Kingdom’s terms of membership of the European Community”.
The terms were known. There was a gap of almost three months between negotiations being completed and the referendum taking place. For the referendum provided for in this Bill, it is expected that electors will be invited to make a decision based on the Government’s negotiations. Nothing about the negotiations appears on the face of the Bill and it is not clear as to the relationship between the date of the referendum and the stage at which negotiations are completed and, indeed, what form completion takes. In the event of a vote to remain in the EU with negotiations incomplete, what obligations remain with the Government?
Other issues to be addressed, in my view, are whether there should be a threshold requirement, similar to that imposed in the 1979 referendums, and whether it should be a binding referendum, as with the 2011 referendum on the electoral system, or whether it should be advisory, as has been the norm. There is clearly a case for considering a threshold, given the significance of the issue, and especially so should we decide that the outcome should be binding. An advisory referendum gives Parliament the opportunity to take into account turnout in considering whether to legislate in line with how electors have voted. I assume that there will be a reasonably high turnout, but that is not certain. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Anelay can share with us the Government’s expectation as to turnout, and whether they are minded to accept that a threshold is desirable, and if not, why not.
The House of Commons has passed this Bill. It is not our task to challenge the principle. The Commons has also approved, after discussion, particular provisions, or refused to include particular provisions. We can usefully address those matters that the other place has not considered. It is important to get the Bill right before we begin a referendum campaign. We need to ensure that we focus on the merits on the Bill. There is still work to be done, and it is important that this House plays to its strengths.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
A referendum is,
“a device of dictators and demagogues”,
said Mrs Thatcher in 1975. Clearly, like the Bishops, she knew her Book. We are, however, where we are. This is not like last time. It is not like the Battle of Balaclava: the gallant charge of the Light Brigade with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, playing Lord Cardigan. The manifesto pledge was clear; the electorate voted; the House of Commons has voted. Our task is to improve this Bill; we cannot possibly oppose it.
I do not want to talk about the negotiations in Brussels. I echo all that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, said. I cannot add to that because I do not know what is happening and I understand neither our aims nor our methods. I am baffled, as is Brussels. Instead, I will step back a bit. I have a nasty feeling that we have been here before: a newly elected Government; an intervention in the Middle East, not hugely successful; non-intervention to assist a European neighbour invaded by Russia; and a Government seriously contemplating the possibility of stepping out from the task of forging a stronger, more competitive Europe—this is 1956. We paid for our Suez mistake over a generation in foreign policy.
Our worst mistake, however, was to walk out of the Val Duchesse talks which followed the conference at Messina and led to the Treaty of Rome. We knew almost immediately that it was a mistake. Prime Minister Macmillan tried to prise open the door that we had slammed behind us as we flounced out. However, it took 15 years to get that door open. Meanwhile the rules of the club had been written in our absence and inevitably to our detriment. Once we were in, it took us another 15 years to correct that detriment: to establish, at least in principle, a single market; to bring down external tariffs; and to entrench free trade. It took another 15 years finally to deliver Mrs Thatcher’s vision—the vision of the Bruges speech—of a wider Europe: bringing Budapest, Prague and Warsaw into the Union and to some extent laying to rest the ghosts of 1956.
How ironic that, under another Conservative Government, we are contemplating throwing all that away, renouncing our leading role in the single market—now of 500 million—and reverting to sovereign autarchy and isolation. It was a Conservative Party thinker who pointed out that the lone man lost in the Sahara has absolute sovereignty but is absolutely powerless. You have to be in to win. People have spoken about the Norwegians. To obtain access to the single market they have to accept EU rules, standards and specifications, and have no say in writing them. It was the Norwegian Foreign Minister who reminded us, “Leave, and you will be run by Brussels. Stay, and you can run Brussels”.
Who would like us to leave? Mr Putin, obviously—he thinks only in zero-sum games and the weaker the West is, the better, as far as he is concerned. Our American friends, our Commonwealth friends, our developing country friends, our Asian investor friends: all urge us to stay in their interests and, they believe, ours. They find it baffling that we might want to repeat the Messina mistake; so do I.
I believe we owe it to the electorate to enable them to make a properly informed choice: to heed Mrs Thatcher’s 1975 warning and see through the silly slogans and assertions, which will come from both sides, while realising the historical gravity of the decision. This is not a vote of confidence or no confidence in the Government. It is not an opinion poll on benefit cuts, devolution or austerity. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said this morning, a vote to leave the EU would not be a reversible vote, like a vote in an election. The decision would be one that our children and grandchildren would have to live with, so we have to improve the Bill.
Others have spoken of extending the franchise. I agree with all three suggestions that emerged this morning. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said and agree strongly with the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said about 16 and 17 year-olds.
On Clause 6, I admit that I am baffled. I did not understand this morning’s exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the Minister. The concern I have about Clause 6 is that I would like to be reassured that this additional provision, accepted by the Government in the Commons, would not affect practically the conduct of government business in Brussels to the detriment of the national interest. That is what I will be looking for.
The most important changes, or rather additions, that we need to make to the Bill are those about which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, spoke this morning. How can we ensure that the country is properly informed in advance on the consequences of a vote to leave? When in the last Parliament we in this House looked at the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, we carried by a huge majority an amendment requiring the Government to report, before the referendum, on the economic effects of our leaving. The country really needs to know the legislative and statutory effects of leaving in the areas of responsibility of every government department, central and devolved. The country needs to know the effect on individual citizens resident here and resident elsewhere in the EU.
Above all, the country needs a definition of out. It needs to know what out means. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked, what relationship with our shortly to be former partners would the Government envisage if required to take us out, and on what evidence do they believe that the 27 would agree? The economic consequences of repeating the Messina mistake would clearly be much bigger now, with the Union so much wider and stronger. To what extent, and in what negotiable ways, do the Government intend that they would be mitigated? The country needs to know, so getting the Bill right really matters.
I end with a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby, not so much for what he said today—although there was a point in it with which I agreed—and not for the messages of despair about continental Europe and the need for us to escape from it that he has been sending us in recent weeks from his hideout in the maquis of continental Europe, but for the perception and generosity of his wise weekend words about Geoffrey Howe. I add a tribute in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for his contribution to that extremely moving BBC television programme on Denis Healey last week. Healey and Howe were two sparring partners and great statesmen—two very brave men and great Chancellors. I worked for them both, as I worked for their successor, and I know the importance that both would have attached to this referendum. Both campaigned in 1975 with Mrs Thatcher for us to stay in. Both were proud patriots with a sense of history and the knack of bending its arc our way, particularly in Europe—Healey with his link to Schmidt and Howe with his link to Delors. They would not have wished to see us repeat the Messina mistake. I really hope that we will not.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, referenda in the UK, as we all know, are a fairly new innovation. The first time in modern history that a referendum was used was in 1975, and their use was opposed quite vigorously by both Attlee and Churchill. They only came into being in 1975—the noble Lord, Lord Radice, gave us a very good history lesson earlier—to get the Labour Party off the hook, because it was deeply divided at that time. One part of the party wanted to be in, and the other part wanted to be out. Harold Wilson, who still stands high in my pantheon of former Labour Prime Ministers, went along with this suggestion, which I do not think he believed in for a minute. He went along with it, however, and the Labour Party—if I remember correctly—came up with the slogan, “Not on Tory terms”, without actually specifying what terms would be acceptable, because that did at least solve the immediate problem that the ones on offer were not acceptable.
I have always disputed the complaint that we are somehow in something that we were not promised. In fact, the whole 1975 referendum campaign, in my part of London, was about what this campaign is about: Brussels. I remember listening to people like Tony Benn and Enoch Powell saying exactly what is being said today—that Brussels would somehow run things. In the end, we had to come to a conclusion, and overall we came to a very clear conclusion in 1975. I can help my noble friend Lord Lawson, who earlier seemed to be searching for a slogan to show that there was something beyond Europe. From history, I commend to him the slogan of the Morning Star in 1975:
“No to a bosses’ Europe; yes to a workers’ world”.
That was meant to show that there was something beyond Europe that was vital and worth us getting.
The difference, of course, as has been said, is that the 1974-75 renegotiation was not the same as the present one: things are now very different. Today’s renegotiation, to be quite honest—which we seem to be in this House at the moment—is also to get the Government off the hook. It is as simple as that. The country is divided; there is a feeling that after 40 years, perhaps we should revisit this and have another go, but in fact, the options are far more limited today. There is really no option for any sensible person other than to maintain, and somehow build on, our relationship with Europe. The debate is about how we influence what we have got. Moreover, this is not the first renegotiation: Mrs Thatcher negotiated our terms in Europe much more fundamentally than this renegotiation will.
One of the delights of a long career in politics is that you can look back to all of the positions you have held—in my case, many have changed over the years—and at the changes in the parties’ positions. When Mrs Thatcher did her renegotiation, the Conservative Party was 100% in favour of Europe. I was in the European Parliament at that time. There was an odd little group called the H-block, led, if I remember correctly, by the late Brian Hord. They were in favour of something different, but overall, the Conservative Party was strongly in favour. The Labour Party was more divided. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, has gone, because it was actually he who turned the Labour Party round more than anyone else. Of all the achievements to which he can lay claim, the foremost was that he was prepared to grasp the question by the throat and he turned the Labour Party round.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned the negotiation by John Major to get Britain out of the social chapter. That was a really brilliant negotiation. Of course, what he conceded was that into the treaty went Strasbourg as the seat of the European Parliament. Tony Blair came into power and said, “We’re going into the social chapter”. The other countries said, “Fine. If you want to, we’ll amend the treaty”. I do not think France is going to say, “We’ll abandon Strasbourg” quite as easily, so be careful what concessions you give along the way.
I shall mention a couple of things concerning the present Bill, neutrally rather than hostilely. The British electorate are a jumble. Frankly, when citizens in Malta, Cyprus and half of Gibraltar can vote, but people who have worked in Britain for 20 years and who happen to have a French passport cannot, we are in an area of lunacy. The only advice I would give is that they should change their nationality. They still have time to do it. I am very willing to give any European Union citizen a quick course on how to change their nationality to become a good Brit, and be able to vote in our referendum. It is actually not very hard if you have a clean record and have been here for a bit of time. My advice to them is to get on board.
On the voting age, have we not got into a mess? We seem to have one age for one set of elections and another age for another set. I say to the Minister and my colleagues that we had better get something sorted out, because what we have does not make sense. We have a very odd collection of different ages. I would not go for 16, but since it seems that half of elections nowadays go for 16, I will restrict myself to saying, “Please sort it out”.
At the end of this debate, we are going to have to decide. I predict a rerun of 1975. I think the establishments of all the major parties will be saying vote yes, and the two outer wings will say vote no. Who are going to be the latter-day successors to J Enoch Powell and AW Benn? I am not going to start speculating. I can think of their names, but I predict that it will be like that. If I remember rightly, only Orkney and the Shetland Islands voted no in the previous referendum. There might be a few more no votes this time, perhaps some in Northern Ireland, because it has a habit of spiting itself. Some places might vote no, but overall I predict there will be an overwhelming yes vote. The TUC has indicated it is onside, as has the CBI. We have set up an all-party campaign, and I am working with my good friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, across the aisle, to deliver Cambridge, one small but important city, for the yes vote. I look forward to getting a yes vote, getting this passed in some form or other and getting on with the job of being good partners in Europe.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is sad that, at this time, we do not have the benefit of the wisdom and experience of Lord Healey and Lord Howe, and we send our sincere condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, at this very sad time.
This debate is more limited in scope than perhaps it would have been earlier this year. The starting point is surely that, after the general election, the Government can claim to have a mandate. We now need to examine the details of implementing the electorate’s decision.
In the other place, the Foreign Secretary declared that there are three variables: the date, the question and the franchise. On the date, the Government have stated that the referendum will be held before the end of 2017 and that the precise date will depend on the progress of negotiations. It has now been agreed that the referendum will not coincide with certain domestic elections. There is, however, a problem. In 2017, there are key elections in France and Germany. I agree with Liam Fox MP that, with all the different procedures in the 27 other member countries and the temptation for them to add favourite items, it is unrealistic to expect treaty change by the end of 2017. A post-dated cheque would obviously raise problems. We can do little about the date in today’s debate, but it is worth looking at the Guardian today, which suggests that there is not much urgency in the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiations. Perhaps the Minister could reply to that later.
The question was changed for the better in the other place; it no longer invites the answer yes, but is balanced and fair. So far as the franchise is concerned, the simplest solution is, of course, the normal franchise for a general election with the addition of Gibraltar, which has already happened, and Members of this House. However, there are still many absurdities. Citizens of one foreign country resident in the UK—namely Ireland—can vote. Only citizens from certain EU countries in the UK—namely Malta and Cyprus—can vote. Citizens of Gibraltar, who along with the Falkland Islanders would face the most adverse consequences if we were to remove ourselves as advocates for them in Brussels, have the vote. EU citizens who may have spent decades here and have policy interests across the board will not have the vote, while British citizens who live abroad and may no longer have any real stake in our country, will. Surely some consideration should be given to adopting the same rules as in local government elections to allow all other EU nationals resident in the UK for a certain period of time, perhaps three years, to vote.
I have a few observations from my personal experience. I was in a European department in the Foreign Office when we in this country debated the alternatives such as EFTA, the diversion at that time. I appeared with Edward Heath on the same platform during the 1975 election. This, as Yogi Berra is supposed to have said, is like déjà vu all over again. We have a divided government party wheeling in a device like a deus ex machina for party, not national, interest. I recall in 1975 the bald assertion that the referendum would result in the closure of debate on our EU membership. Tony Benn soon recommenced his campaign against the EU, which led to the disastrous 1983 Labour manifesto.
Another precedent is of course the current debate in Scotland on a second referendum on independence. It is claimed by some that our citizens need to be asked again, as there was no mention in 1975 of ever-closer union and vast changes have taken place since. I comment that ever-closer union, which the Government now seek to opt out of, was always in the treaty. Again, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would say, no institution is static. All political institutions are dynamic. Surely no one believed that the European Union would stand still. Still, David Cameron, our Prime Minister, wants his Clause 4 moment by seeking to avoid for us the movement towards ever-closer union.
I took part in the French referendum on the Maastricht treaty, successfully, I may say—just. Most of the debate at the time was wholly unrelated to Maastricht. That is really the problem: an in/out question can be easily misinterpreted. However, the referendum will not give a list of options for our people. What alternative would they favour if they were to vote no? How would we interpret a no vote? If the Government are so keen to listen to the people and have the benefit of their views, surely there should be a whole series of additional questions such as, “If no, what would you like to happen?”.
My experience of the 1979 and 1997 referendums on devolution in my own Wales is that the result of the vote depends on who asks the question and when they ask it. In Sweden, for example, there was one brief moment when Swedish public opinion swung in favour of the EU, and that was the time when the referendum was held. There is a danger of a passing public mood which can determine the result; for example, if immigration were to rise to the top of the agenda of concern and were linked by the public to the EU.
One brief penultimate comment on the PM’s position. Clearly he travels light on this issue, as indeed on most other policy questions. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, claims in his book that Mr Cameron wants us in, come what may. Certainly up to 2012, knowing the resulting uncertainties for our business and inward investment, he gave powerful speeches against a referendum. It is his party and not national imperatives which have changed his position. It is a dangerous gamble for the UK as a whole since a no vote would deliver a powerful new impetus to Scottish independence. I wonder if that has been added to the Prime Minister’s equation.
No doubt we shall examine the details of the Bill—particularly the question on the franchise for those who are 16 and above—and debate reports on possible alternatives. The referendum involves key decisions for us. It relates to how we see ourselves and our place in the world. Will we be stronger if we withdraw? Will we be taken more seriously by key players such as the United States, particularly in international trade negotiations? Will we be more attractive for inward investment? Will our car industry flourish with higher tariffs or will we be increasingly marginalised as a middle-ranking power but still—like Norway—be heavily influenced by decisions over which we have no say? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked, “Who wants us out?”, and the list he gave was most instructive. Thus, beyond the details of the Bill are wider questions which I fear for party reasons the Government will seek to avoid.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, in waiting to speak this afternoon I have felt more comfortable than for many years because the Bench with a hole in it on which I habitually sit has finally been replaced. I mention this to reassure those who are still sitting on dilapidated Benches. It may be that the change here is a sign that austerity is finally coming to an end. I should add that one great advantage is that it is not as slippery, so that one does not find oneself sliding backwards and lying back and then being unjustly accused by the press of being asleep in a debate while listening to what people are saying. At all events, some things are improving.
I have always been totally opposed to referendums, and in particular to what one might call binding or mandatory referendums, which in effect represent the dictatorship of the majority and take no account of minority interests. They are the antithesis of representative democracy and leave Members of Parliament unable to wholly fulfil their jobs as representatives and not delegates. I was glad to see in a note prepared by the Library that this Bill,
“does not contain any requirement on the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative”.
For the reasons I have just mentioned I welcome that, but I am not at all sure that that is what is understood by the public at large who are going to suffer perhaps two years of debate on this issue and then find that the way the vote has been cast does not automatically get implemented by Parliament. If I may say so, I think my noble friend the Minister said in her opening remarks that the people will have the final say. Strictly speaking, I suspect that that is not true as far as the way that the Bill is drafted.
The other thing, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, is that the Bill does not include any provision either for what should be decided as a decisive majority on the one hand or what should be the threshold for voting on the other. We will need to consider that in the course of debates in Committee and at later stages. There is also some danger that because this is being carried out against the background of a renegotiation, the vote will reflect whether people think that the renegotiation has been successful or not rather than the underlying question of whether we ought to be in or out. That could distort the result, perhaps to a significant extent.
It has been very difficult to discern what the Government’s objectives are at the present time—many Members have referred to this—but it is clear that the Prime Minister and the Government are opposed to the concept of ever-closer union. But there is a real paradox here. The people who frustrate any move to ever-closer union are the bureaucrats in Brussels, because they are absolutely fixated on two things: the single currency and the free movement of people. Far from leading to closer union, both those dogmas have put them in a position which is more and more divisive. We were told that the single currency would lead to harmonisation and convergence, but that is far from the case. You only have to look at the recent disputes with Greece to realise that the effect of the single currency has been to tear countries apart rather than to bring them together. The situation is similar with regard to the free movement of people, particularly against the background of the extraordinary increase in immigration from outside the European Union, and the way in which this has caused great dissent between, let us say, Germany and Hungary. There is therefore a curious paradox that what the Prime Minister is against is effectively implemented by the bureaucracy in Brussels.
However, at all events, what is crucial is that because of these two issues, which we have opted out of, the Prime Minister has effectively opted out of participation in many of the most important issues, not least the ones I have just mentioned, which are going on at the present time. He has tended to opt out, which is very dangerous indeed. We need to get to a situation where much of the renegotiation should lead to us arguing for what is right not only for this country but for the European Union as a whole. At the moment, the issues I discussed earlier are greatly to the detriment of our country in terms of, for example, exports, problems with immigration and so on. So the Prime Minister has to ensure that he takes a far more active role in Europe than appears to have been the case, because we have not been participating in those particular major areas of policy which I have referred to.
I will make one final point. All these tendencies have been recently for disunity in Europe, which could not happen at a more dangerous time. We cannot conceive of a situation where we have disunity in the European Union on issue after issue and then are totally united on participation in NATO. Personally, I am more worried about that situation than I can remember being for probably my whole adult life. These are important issues, and I hope that the Prime Minister will take a lead in the way I have suggested.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, which has ranged far and wide over the major strategic issues of the last 70 years in Europe, since the last war, right through to the issues of today, such as the wording of the referendum question and purdah. However, the Bill itself is mainly about very technical matters; 48 of the 56 pages concern detailed technical issues to do with the organisation of the referendum. I hope—others may not agree—that when we discuss this in Committee we will be able to carry out the House of Lords’ traditional role of scrutinising detail and spend at least a little of the time looking at these matters because they need scrutiny. There are a lot of ministerial powers set out here, for example, not just about the question of purdah, which I think we ought to look at and at the very least press the Government into saying what their intentions are.
On a minor detail, I express my personal thanks to the Government for the change to the Bill that means the referendum cannot be on 5 May next year, which is the day my current term of office as a local councillor comes to an end. If I decide to defend my seat, I would really prefer to do it without the encumbrance of a referendum on the European Union at the same time, which might divert attention from whether people want me again.
It has been a good debate and, in particular, I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is not in his seat at the moment—who talked about going into battle waving a white flag not being the thing to do because you are giving up before you start. However, the problem is that some of us would rather that this referendum was not taking place and we have no real confidence that there will be any huge change as a result of the negotiations. The Prime Minister and others will come back with a huge amount of spin, trying to tell the country about all the great changes they have achieved, which will not add up to very much at all. To that degree, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lawson, and people on their side. The problem is that I do not really want any changes before we have the vote. I am perfectly happy to vote for the European Union as it is now and get stuck in within the European Union to achieve what changes this country might like.
As for flying the flag, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that he was responsible for flying some flags somewhere in Wales and had four in a row: one for Wales, one for the UK and I am not sure what the others were. That is exactly what we did in the town I live in, Colne in Lancashire, where we have four flags flying outside the town hall. I always thought it was rather nice, all the flags you saw outside continental town halls when you went to Europe—the European mainland, I should say—so we have done it in Colne. We have the union flag, the flag of England and the European flag, which we were told people would come and tear down but nobody did. The only one anybody ever tore down was the union flag and they were football hooligans who wanted to run round the streets in a drunken manner, waving it. We also have the Lancashire flag. It took some time to get Lancashire County Council to agree to allow us to use the Lancashire flag, or perhaps it was the sheriff who had to agree—I am not sure. In the end I had to go to see Louise Ellman, who at the time was chairman of Lancashire County Council, to knock some heads together because they said the Lancashire flag could be flown only on the county hall and on the county jail in Preston. It now flies in Colne as well and that is the way to fly flags: fly as many as possible to represent the things to which people feel allegiance. The danger with flags occurs when one flag is dominant and it becomes very nationalist.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that there had been a European distrust of democracy and democratic accountability, but I suggest that democracy is more than simply having elections and electing a leader or a group of people every so often. Representative democracy is indeed at the very heart of democracy but other things are too—things such as the rule of law, due process, equality and freedom under the law, and concepts of citizenship. Many of those concepts are as well known within the rest of Europe as they are in this country, and in some cases better known and better understood than they are in this country. How much better it is to have all those long, tedious and, some people think, extremely boring and time-wasting meetings in which European politicians and officials negotiate farm payments at 2 am to meet deadlines that expired at midnight and so on than it is to have them organising arms to shoot at each other.
One of the great triumphs of Europe is that it is 70 years—at least, within the European Union—since people in Europe were organised to shoot at each other. That is a huge triumph of Europe and, given its history, 70 years is a long time for that to have been the case. Anybody who thinks that Europe could not revert to a situation in which some of the countries that are now in the European Union start shooting at each other again is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. You have only to look not very far away—for example, to the eastern part of Ukraine—or to remember what happened in the Balkans just over 20 years ago to realise that there is nothing special about Europeans and that we are not a special kind of human being that does not engage in that sort of activity. The European Union has been absolutely fundamental in questions of war and peace. I hope that we will manage to talk about that in the referendum campaign and not just about trade, although, as a Liberal, I am not going to say that trade is not important.
I have two more brief points to make. One concerns the question of voting by 16 year-olds or whoever. One of the huge problems under the new system of individual electoral registration—which in general I support—is the registration of young voters. It is said that 2 million 18 to 24 year-olds are not registered and that among 17 year-olds—the attainers—only 25% are registered. That has to be tackled.
My final point is that it is all very well being able to vote as a British citizen living in another European Union country if you can get on the register and get your postal vote sent to you, but there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from the recent general election that people had problems with both those things. That is another issue that will have to be looked at if we have a referendum in which all these people in Europe vote.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I believe that the Government are clearly acting in the national interest in giving the people the final decision on this matter and I congratulate them on keeping their manifesto promise in this respect.
I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her opening remarks, which very crisply set out what can be achieved by this referendum. As she said, it is absolutely vital that it is seen to be robust and fair. We want to settle this question for a generation. I will possibly vote to leave unless the negotiations come up with good results but, if I do so and I lose, I will not complain unless the referendum has been unfair, and I am sure that others on all sides will take that view. So when the Minister says that we need to strengthen the perception that the neutrality of the Bill is beyond doubt, I heartily concur with that sentiment. The wording of the question, which achieves the maximum level of neutrality, is a good improvement. I welcome that as well and echo what my noble friend Lord Norton said about the inherent bias in “yes” and “no”.
However, that is precisely why Clause 6 needs to be scrutinised very carefully. This is the clause under which exemptions to Section 125 of the 2000 Act can be applied for and where the purdah rules can be altered, if necessary, in the run-up to the election. I am concerned about the power to make exceptions to Section 125 and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said in his intervention on the Minister: that we need to see what those exceptions are as soon as possible and not just four months before the referendum. As the Minister said, we want a fair campaign so that the deck is not stacked in favour of one side or another. In his closing remarks in the other place, Minister John Penrose said that a 16-week referendum period with no announcements in that time will be allowed. Will the Government put that assurance in the legislation?
On the question of 16 and 17 year- olds, I was 17 in 1975. That means that I am one of the oldest people in the country and the House who has never had a say on the question of membership of the European Union. I am longing to have a say; I am looking forward to getting my chance at last. I am not sure that I would trust my 17 year-old self to vote sensibly on that matter, and that is probably partly why I think the Government are right to stick to the Westminster franchise on this—to disfranchise my 17 year-old self. It is the only way to solve the various conundrums that were raised by my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about how to set this franchise. The easiest thing is to go for the Westminster franchise, plus, of course, Members of this House.
The timing of this referendum is key. Over the next few years, the European Union is going to change beyond all recognition anyway. The integration of the eurozone is clearly required and necessary. Even if one does not think that it is going to happen anyway, one just has to read the report of the five Presidents or the state of the union speech of Mr Juncker, in which he could not have made it clearer that there will be a new integration of the eurozone and that the UK will have to seek a new status of some kind within that arrangement anyway, by 2020. In a sense, all that we are arguing about is how much independence we will have and what form it will take. Personally, I think that the leap in the dark is to leap in with that very uncertain arrangement.
Many of the speeches today have prematurely joined the battle of the referendum itself, rather than the question of this Bill. In the interests of brevity, I will try to avoid that temptation—except to say that I look forward to a chance to join battle and answer some of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, raised at the beginning of the debate about what we would look like if we were outside. For the moment, I will answer it with one word: independence. The answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, as to whether we would have a seat at the table, is yes, we would have a seat on the World Trade Organization instead of 1/28th of a seat.
In conclusion, I applaud the Government for bringing forward this Bill and urge them to stick to their guns and make absolutely sure that the referendum process is as robust and fair as it can be.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a narrow Bill, which I support. I do not think that it is a bad thing to ask the nation, 40 years since 5 June 1975, if they wish to remain in Europe or leave. Effectively, that was the question then. We were not asked to join; we were asked whether we wanted to remain or leave. In 1975, I voted to leave—I voted no. In the referendum that will follow this Bill, I will vote to remain. I have been of that view for many years. I will do so irrespective of the success or failure perceived of the Prime Minister and irrespective of whatever changes may or may not take place in the leadership views of the Labour Party.
Like many in the Labour movement, I was finally moved over by Jacques Delors when he came to address conference. It was a massive turning point because he put the case in a way that I had not understood or seen before. I am of the opinion that, warts and all, it is in the overwhelming interests of the UK and our EU partners that we remain. That is it, really.
A key amendment, and a view that I think is shared by many others, is to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. I was a member of the Labour Party’s Plant commission some 25 years ago. I was in a minority then regarding the voting age, but since then I have changed my mind—that is the second change today. It is clearly a vote for a whole generation. This is not, as someone said, for a five-year election; it is for at least 40 years, and I think they should have their say. Scotland has shown that it works. We have had a practical example: it works. The past couple of weeks, in the Lords outreach schools programme, I have been in two secondary schools and the issue was raised at both of those.
I also think the issue of the franchise has to be looked at. People who have settled here with indefinite leave to remain have planted their life in this country, and irrespective of their technical nationality their commitment is to stay here; they really should have the vote. You cannot justify the various changes that have been debated in the Chamber today, with two other Commonwealth countries being part of the EU and the situation we have with the Irish Republic, a member state of the EU—we have peculiar, discrete voting arrangements for people from the Irish Republic in our elections here, which of course should continue. The fact is that people should be treated the same. If you put your stake in the UK, and this is a matter for the UK, I think you should have the vote.
I am a bit concerned that a lot of people have said that the TUC is on board. Some of the trade union leaders, I have gathered from the past few weeks, are a bit flaky.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
If people from France or wherever wish to commit to staying here for the rest of their lives, they will be naturalised British and the problem does not arise. Most of them—and I know a number of them—intend to go back at a later stage to their own countries. They still feel that that is where they belong.
Lord Rooker
That is not relevant to what I was saying.
I am concerned that some of the trade union leaders are a bit flaky, and I think the members of the trade unions should ignore them. Is the answer to the Tories taking the UK out of the Social Chapter to leave the EU altogether rather than campaign to change the Government so we can rejoin the Social Chapter? It beggars belief that some trade union leaders have said this. The words “donkeys” and “leadership” come to mind.
I have a technical question. No one has raised this, and I do not mean this in any way whatsoever personally for anybody. It is a technical question about the EU pensioners. There are several of them, several classes of person, who are EU pensioners. In some ways, it looks like a vested interest to any reasonable person, a citizen, for them to be involved in the campaign. In certain circumstances, the oath that they take binds them to the EU, and there are pension payments. This is a technical question for the Minister: Is it possible for an ex-Commissioner or other staff of the EU who are retired to campaign for the UK to leave and still be eligible to collect their EU pension? I do not mean this in any personal way, but the fact is this campaign will get dirtied by parts of the press. The sooner we get out the vested-interest issue and declarations of interest, the better it will be for everybody. It is best not to wait until the last time.
I cannot deny that Brussels interference rattles me, both as a Back-Bencher and when I was a Minister. I reckon in some ways, if the EU were a fully federal state, with elected, quality Commissioners, we would end up with more powers going back to the member states than are residing in Brussels. More powers to an unelected Commission stands in the way of progress.
Some of those powers must involve member states having a say on how big they get. Eurostat projections show that the UK will grow faster than any other member state. By the mid-2040s, the UK will be the most populous country in the EU, with 77 million people, ahead of Germany with 75 million and France with 74 million. Unplanned growth on this scale is not on in respect of what we do in this country, in respect of the infrastructure and water resources and everything else—nothing that I have seen in Whitehall over the years shows that we are prepared for it. I am not making a point about immigration or free movement of people; the fact is that it is a consequence and it is going to happen—the forecasts are there and they will turn out to be right. It is an issue that the member states should have some say in.
The balance of competences review was referred to earlier. I was at the Food Standards Agency at the time and we proposed a joint submission with Defra—that was the way we did it. It was clear so far as food safety was concerned that, with UK, EU and the international regulations which oversee both world trade and the Codex Alimentarius, it was overwhelmingly in our interests to stay. Of course, the powers that be at Defra at the time, the high command, tried to water it down. The FSA stood firm against it—two government departments were involved; the Secretary of State at Defra was not that keen.
On trade, I remember going to New Zealand on a private visit and discussing with farmers there the issues that they had in exporting—it is a major area of export. They just made it clear: “We get the instructions from Brussels, and we have to follow them”. That is exactly what will happen to the UK. We do not have to go to Norway to see what will happen; we can go to a major trading partner such as New Zealand.
The issue of the threshold, which has been raised a couple of times, will have to be looked at. What if, on a low turnout—let us say, less than 50%—the majority is narrow? This decision is for a generation—40 years; this is not like when we had the debates on the alternative vote issue, which was a blip, a snapshot that could be overturned the following week. What are the rules? There is no sense in having the debate after the result. We need to discuss it beforehand and this House is in an ideal position to be able to advise the Commons in some ways to think again.
The UK should be at the EU table out of choice, not dragged there in a sulk, which is how we have been for decades. Having a continuously troubled relationship —because that is what we have got—under Governments of both parties is not in the UK’s best interests, let alone those of our partners. We will never win allies for change, which is what we want. How will we get allies if we are there sulking and always seeming to be troubled? The prize of having a set of sovereign nation states, working together democratically and coming together for the big issues, is a prize well worth having, which is why I shall support continued membership.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, it is important to commend the Government on introducing this Bill. I am just old enough that the first time I voted was in the first referendum—but that was to join a trading bloc and it has changed a lot to become the EU. It is high time that the people were asked again for their view on the EU.
It is also good that there are restrictions on government activity during the last month of the campaign. This will allow for proper debate during the run-up to the referendum that is not swayed by government resources or prestige.
I broadly support this government Bill and we must be extremely careful in amending it. Any amendments made will be reviewed through the prism of politics and might easily, and most likely correctly, be analysed as blocking amendments rather than improvements. Let us not try to fight the referendum by proxy through blocking amendments to the Bill. Our job in this House is to improve, not to block.
I am particularly concerned about potential amendments to widen the franchise to 16 or 17 year-olds. The Americans rallied to “no taxation without representation”. The inversion must surely be true: no representation without taxation. So what taxation is proposed for newly enfranchised 16 and 17 year-olds? If this amendment were to make it on to the Bill, it is incumbent on those who proposed it to answer this question.
Schooling or training is compulsory for this age group, so how can we now suggest that their education is so complete at age 16 that they are qualified to take part in elections and referendums? Perhaps we can create a link between truancy from school and voting. If 16 and 17 year-olds can vote, should they also be criminally liable for truancy? We are talking about young people who cannot enter binding contracts or sit on a jury. As I mentioned, this amendment is a perfect example of a block pretending to be an improvement by just changing the franchise.
The only bigger-picture problem that I see is if the negotiations going on now produce a third way—a sort of associate membership of the EU. If that happens, what becomes of the referendum question? Is the question asking: should we leave the existing EU, or remain in a new form of membership? Will the EU Referendum Bill have to be amended before it is used? Only time will tell. In the mean time, let us put this question behind us for a whole generation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, whatever one’s view on the value and democratic viability of referendums—my own remains somewhat between the sceptical and negative, rather closer to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, than to some others: a scepticism that was reinforced by the experience of the recent referendum in Greece—the matter of holding an in/out referendum in this country before the end of 2017 was settled, so far as I am concerned, on 7 May, when a party with a commitment to such a referendum won an overall majority in the House of Commons.
Our constitutional practice means that the Bill enabling such a referendum to be held must go into the statute book without undue delay, leaving the Government some flexibility as to the date in 2016 or 2017 that they choose to hold the vote—a flexibility which I suggest is essential if Britain’s negotiating hand in Brussels is not to be damagingly constrained. I respect that practice, which does not of course preclude amendments to the Bill—and they will not be blocking amendments. The noble Lord who spoke before me seems to have ignored the fact that his own party gave the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland. Are they paying tax? I do not know.
We need to think very long about the possibility of amending the Bill because there are shortcomings in its present form and they are capable of being divided, as most speakers have done, into two categories: franchise and policy. If I have heard the phrase “the people must have their say on our EU membership” once, I have heard it a hundred times and I have no doubt that it will, and has, come up in this debate. But who are the people who are to have their say? That is the question. It surely demands great care and imagination when one considers that the decision being taken will last far longer than a single Parliament and will affect fundamentally far more people than currently get the vote in our parliamentary elections, which is the franchise in the Bill before us.
The essence of democracy is surely that people who will be affected by a decision should have their say on it. Here there are three groups who, in the Government’s Bill, will not have their say on it. First, the 16 and 17 year-olds. This group of young people was given the vote in the Scottish referendum last year and the general view seems to be that they exercised it responsibly and in large numbers. So why are they not to be given the vote in this referendum—which, like last year’s vote, will affect their lives for far longer than the rest of us?
The second group comprises British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union who lose their vote after 15 years outside this country. The manifesto of the party with a majority in the Commons contains a commitment to give them a vote in future parliamentary elections, quite rightly in my view—so why on earth are they to be excluded from the one vote that they are most likely to want to exercise? That does not make much sense, and I regard it as pretty aberrant myself.
There is also the question of EU citizens who have been for a certain time in the UK. They, too, were given the vote in the referendum in Scotland. They, too, will be fundamentally affected by the outcome of this referendum. It is surely anomalous that Irish and Commonwealth citizens should be able to vote—which I personally welcome and support—while French, Dutch, Poles and other EU citizens will not. Do we seriously dispute that the German or Italian citizen living here will have more at stake in the outcome than will a Sri Lankan or a Kenyan?
Switching now to the policy issues raised by this legislation, there is, above all, the need to provide voters with objective information for which no provision is made under the Bill. There will be plenty of advocacy on both sides of the argument—I may be responsible for some of it myself—but it will not be, and will not be intended to be, unbiased. Yet as we know from opinion polling, the public are not much interested in, or knowledgeable about, much of the important technical detail of our EU membership. There is a general lack of the sort of independent analysis from outside government bodies such as the Office for Budget Responsibility, or like the Institute for Fiscal Studies provides on election manifestos before general elections.
Surely we need a statutory requirement on the Government to ensure that objective information is made available in good time. There is also, after all, plenty of recent evidence-based material to draw on in the form of the last Government’s Review of the Balance of Competences. That may be too long and too detailed for the average voter to absorb, but surely a digest of its conclusions could be made available to the electorate. There is the crucial matter of the possible consequences of a no vote. It is a vital requirement that the electorate should know what would happen in those circumstances, however much I hope they will not arise. Otherwise, a no vote will be a simple leap in the dark. That is becoming a little bit of a mantra now, but it is true nevertheless.
We have seen that happen recently in Greece. This is not just about the trading alternatives—EEA, Switzerland, or none of the above—important though the choice in that respect will be. We also need to know what will happen to farm policy, research policy, law and order issues and business regulation—all of which would be fundamentally affected by a decision to withdraw. These consequential issues need to be spelled out by the Government because it will be they, not the no campaign, who will be left holding the baby if a majority of the electorate votes to leave.
In 1975 the Government produced a document called, If We Say No. I suggest that the Minister might like to have a look at it and consider whether the Government should reissue a document of a similar nature. It was sent to all electors. It was clear and well written, and much of it is as relevant today as the day it was written.
A contribution to this debate would not be complete without a word on the implications of an EU referendum for our own union within the United Kingdom. These could be far-reaching and dramatic, particularly in the event of a vote to leave the EU. Who seriously doubts—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, seems to doubt it, but I have not found many people who do—that a vote in the face of a Scottish vote to remain and by the rest of us to leave would trigger another independence referendum in that country, which would be all too likely to prevail? Who seriously doubts that a decision to separate the two parts of the island of Ireland into one part outside and one part inside the EU would be a major factor destabilising the Good Friday agreement, which is already under considerable strain? These issues are critical for our national future and should surely give pause for thought to anyone thinking of leaving.
I conclude by saying that the debate will obviously be pretty sharp. I hope that it will not be dominated by negative clamour. The purposes for which the European Communities were founded more than 60 years ago were noble: to put behind us for ever the appalling history of disastrous conflicts in order to achieve security and prosperity for all Europeans. They remain as true and valid today as they were then.
After a hesitant start, this country has played a significant and influential part in shaping the European Union. Look at the single market, the liberalisation of world trade, development policies and the inclusion of countries in central, eastern and southern Europe. There you will see policy choices and outcomes in which we took part and in which we should now take pride. I believe that it is in our interest to continue along that road and to strengthen the European Union in a flexible and pragmatic way. I sincerely hope that this referendum will do precisely that.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I tried to get out of the starting blocks too quickly and almost interrupted the end of his speech.
As a 22 year-old in the Highlands of Scotland I and my brother campaigned hard for a yes vote in the 1975 referendum. We said that joining the Common Market would be good for farmers, good for businesses and we even told fishermen in the little village of Avoch in the Black Isle that it would be good for our fishermen too. What a lie that turned out to be, as our fishing grounds were stripped bare and there are no fishing boats operating from Avoch anymore.
What were the arguments we were told to make then—arguments in which we then believed? We said that, to the east, there was the massive Warsaw Pact trading bloc with 300 million customers and, to the west, the USA and Canada with 300 million customers. Unless we belonged to a big trading bloc, then we would be frozen out of world markets. That was a credible argument at the time. Then along came GATT and the World Trade Organization, which gave even tiny little countries access to world markets, so that Norway, Taiwan, Singapore and others have flourished without being part of a big trading bloc.
Then the European integrationists changed the argument and said that, although we did not need to be part of a big trade bloc to survive, it would be better if we were part of a large single market whereby we all had unrestricted access to others’ goods and services. Even Margaret Thatcher was persuaded, although she later realised that it was another big con. Although it was implemented by the UK, swathes of EU services have not allowed us access. As good Europeans, we permitted European companies to buy up our transport, water and energy companies, but we did not get equal access to theirs. That was probably our fault rather than the EU’s but, even on this substantial change, the British people had no vote.
Then we had the Maastricht treaty. It was rejected by Denmark in a referendum and, of course, Denmark was made to vote again until its people obeyed the European diktat. On the night of the Maastricht no vote, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and I were in Rio. We were negotiating on the first Earth Summit in 1992. We saved the world then. On that night, I was at a function in the Portuguese embassy. Portugal held the presidency but, as soon as Rio was over, Britain had the presidency and it was our job to speak at the United Nations on behalf of the EU. The EU was desperate to sign the convention itself but it could not; only nation states could. I chaired a meeting in Brussels and knew in advance that this would be coming up. So I called on the Commission lawyers, who said that we could not sign as the EU; it was illegal and against UN rules. I called on our presidency lawyers, who said that we could not do it; it was against EU laws. I called on the German Minister, who said that we could not do it; it was against the law. By this time, the buttons were being pushed, the red light was flashing and a southern European Minister said, “What is all this talk about the law? Let us just do it. Who is to find out?”. That coloured my view—perhaps unfairly—of many of the things we did in the EU.
After Maastricht, once again the British people had no say, even though our sovereignty was fundamentally reduced and our relationship with the EU changed. Then we had the Lisbon treaty, this time rejected by the Irish, who were made to vote again until they came up with a yes vote. Again the British people were given no say.
The next argument used by the European integrationists was that the British economy was so inefficient in comparison to France and Germany that we needed to be in association with those countries in order to benefit from their industrial practices. Well, that would certainly have been true in the 1960s and 1970s, but not now. We have the fastest-growing economy in Europe, if not the G7. We have record employment and the majority of our trade is with the rest of the world, not the EU.
The EU is in decline; it is paying itself too much, is not working hard enough and its “social Europe” pay and benefits systems are dragging us down. Europe is uncompetitive in comparison with the USA and the Asian economies. We are trapped in a declining post-war concept which 33 million Britons aged under 59 do not necessarily understand or have had any say in. I once asked my distinguished predecessor, Willie Whitelaw, why he was so keen on Europe. His answer was, “David, if you had been through the war, then you would support any organisation which kept the peace in Europe”. I said, “But, Willie, NATO did that”, but he responded that political union was a price worth paying for all of us if it kept Germany, France and Italy at peace. I deeply respect that view from a brave Military Cross holder, but the world has moved on since then, but the vision of the old men of the post-war era has not, whether it is Adenauer, Willie, Ted Heath, Wilson, Monnet, Schuman, Brandt, Schmidt, Kohl or d’Estaing. A united political Europe may have made sense to deal with the problems of Europe in the 1950s and 1960s, but it may be irrelevant to our global economy 60 years later. Nor, it seems, have the views changed of those who told us that the UK would die unless we joined the euro. So many of those saying at the BSE launch yesterday that we must stay in or perish were the same ones who got it 100% wrong on the euro. The British people may want to take that into account when weighing the arguments on both sides.
We now need to get the views of the 33 million people—that is an estimate by the Library—who have had no say in the development of this political union since 1975. Our whole electoral roll is about 46 million, I believe, and therefore 75% have never had a say in the creation of the European superstate. I cannot see how anyone can object to consulting the British people on the terms proposed in the Bill before us, which I completely support. Let us have a vote for the first time in 40 years, and I ask the Government to set out the facts clearly. We must have a White Paper setting out what changes the Prime Minister has obtained and the consequences of leaving the EU and of staying in. We know the risks of leaving, but staying in could be a bigger leap in the dark as the EU pushes for “more Europe”. We heard the vision of President Hollande last week, we have the five presidents’ report, and a White Paper to set out just what the Prime Minister has achieved is important, but also we need information on the likely direction of the EU over the next few years. We need to deal with the claim that 3 million jobs will be lost. That is just not credible; 3 million jobs may be tied to EU trade, but there is no suggestion that that trade will suddenly stop.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that we need to see the draft regulations which the Government are proposing on purdah. I accept the Government’s word that they will not seek to claw back the concessions on this made in the other place, but I understand that they have said that some clarificatory regulations will need to be made. Well, if the Government have concluded that there are areas which need clarification, they clearly know what those areas are and we want to see the drafts of the regulations before the Bill goes back to the Commons.
The EU has changed beyond all recognition since I voted for a Common Market in 1975. We never expected to be sucked into a complete political union with our rights to negotiate at the international institutions of the world removed and our voice replaced by the EU, especially at the World Trade Organization. We Britons have always had a world view. We are not little Europeans. I want a Common Market with the world, not a common EU Government. That is the debate I believe we need to have and I think it is the debate we will have over the next 12 months. I believe it is high time that the British electorate had a say. I support the Bill.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, several kindly colleagues from the Benches opposite have spoken to me recently about the interesting times that the Labour Party is living through. Well, I think they were being kind. I have news for these colleagues: however interesting they think my party is at the moment, it will be as nothing compared with the interesting times we could be living in, as a country, in a few years. This is because, as many noble Lords have said, to appease the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party and to call home those Tories caught flirting with UKIP, the Government are—how can I put it?—in Farage-ing for votes, in danger of sleepwalking out of the European Union and consequently breaking up the United Kingdom. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I believe that if Britain leaves Europe, Scotland will be far more likely to leave Britain and we will be left to our own, much-reduced, devices. We could well end up a slightly warmer version of Iceland—although this Chamber would not let you know that this afternoon—with much poorer economic trading and prospects than at present, as many noble Lords have already said, and with much less protection and regulation for working people and our environment. This self-infliction is happening at a time of unprecedented globalisation when it comes to the importance of successful trading blocs and solving damaging climate change at an international level.
My party is supporting this Bill in principle. Before anyone reminds me, I know that was not the case before the general election. As JK Galbraith once said:
“Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory”.
We are where we are, whatever my opinion of referendums. While supporting the Government’s Bill, we will of course seek to improve it, especially in the area of broadening the franchise to include UK citizens aged 16 and over, as many noble Lords have set out so ably today. If we believe that this referendum will settle our relationship with the EU for at least a generation, our young people, who will reach adulthood—and indeed middle age—in that time, should have a say in the moulding of their future. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again on this very important aspect of the Bill.
We are also keen to ensure that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others have called for, the Government make non-partisan and evidence-based information available to the British public regarding our membership of the EU and the consequences and effects of withdrawal from it. As several noble Lords have asked, what are the alternatives? We need to know.
My party has long been committed to Britain remaining a member of the European Union, and continues to be. There is, of course, diversity of opinion in both our party and the country. Individuals are free to campaign as they see fit. However, Labour will make the case for Britain remaining in the EU, because we believe that that is the progressive choice and that the EU has helped the UK to create jobs, secure growth, encourage investment and tackle best those areas of our lives that inevitably cross borders—areas such as climate change, tax havens, terrorism and, currently, getting a grip on the unprecedented refugee crisis. Yes, late in the day, and after much chaos and catch-up, a plan is emerging at EU level for how to deal with so many war-weary people seeking a new life away from death and devastation. Even now, many on these Benches would call on the Government to think again about their decision not to take responsibility for at least a modest proportion of those refugees newly arrived in other EU member states.
While the Labour Party retains its pro-EU stance, we will oppose any attempts by the Government, in their pre-referendum negotiations, to water down, or undermine, our hard-won European Union rights—as individuals and in the workplace. However, we are clear, as my noble friend Lord Rooker has said, that the answer to any damaging changes that the Prime Minister brings back is not to leave the EU but to pledge to reverse those changes by campaigning to stay in, to strengthen our hand and to work towards a Labour Government. As a former Member of the European Parliament who worked on these policies, the European Union inspired maternity leave, parental leave, paid holidays, consumer rights and health and safety standards. I know that these are flags of hope for British people, not flags of surrender, as has already been said.
None of this is to say that the European Union is perfect—quite the contrary. I share the frequent frustration of many British people with the way the EU goes about its business, with a perceived—if not actual—lack of transparency and accountability in decision-making, and with a gulf between well-intentioned, high-level EU rationality and local grass-roots demands for greater openness and devolved powers. We have to regain people’s trust in EU decision-making during the coming campaign.
My party wishes to see reform in Europe on benefits, on how the EU relates to national Parliaments, on state aid rules, on reform of the EU budget and on the further protection of British workers as we move into a more digitised and robotic workplace future, where even the Governor of the Bank of England has said recently that every job he did when he worked at Goldman Sachs could now be done by robots or computers. The answer to that future workplace automation and the depopulation of British careers is not to row ourselves further away from the EU and the possible answers that we could find there, hoping for the best. It is to stay in, complete the single market and boost jobs and growth.
None of this reform happens in a Union of 28 countries without constantly building alliances with our EU partners and arguing the case. I sincerely hope that that is what the Prime Minister is doing in this renegotiation phase, along with recognising where British influence has already played a significant role in developing good EU policy. The Prime Minister’s return from his negotiations is as eagerly awaited by us all as the next series of “The Great British Bake Off”. Let us hope that there will not be too many half-baked outcomes.
We all approach this referendum in our own way. I will do my best to make a well-founded but essentially hopeful case for a British future in Europe. I believe that the British people respond to hopeful campaigns over fear-inducing ones and as we approach the work on this Bill, I hope that—especially for our youngest and newest referendum voters—there will be a thirst to understand and learn more about why we all think our relationship with Europe is important, whatever our in/out stance may be. A shared history in war and peace means that for many of us, decisions on our relations with the EU will always be coloured by a recent past where democracy itself was hard fought-for and we stood shoulder to shoulder with our European neighbours. We should continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with those neighbours into an uncertain future.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, the Bill is a Government manifesto commitment and it must pass as quickly as is reasonably possible. I make that statement of the obvious lest anything I say subsequently should be construed in some way as an attempt to oppose the Bill. Having said that, I am afraid that I do not recant from my previous opposition to the idea of a referendum. I regret the Bill. I submit that it is unnecessary and, in the present circumstances, unwelcome.
It is unnecessary because of the European Union Act 2011, which has already ensured that there can be no transfer of powers to the EU without a referendum. It is unwelcome particularly because the Government have deviated from the 2010 position of the Prime Minister, who at that time was against an in/out referendum, and because it represents a success for those whose only agenda is our exit from the European Union.
I wish the Prime Minister well in his efforts to reform matters of concern to Britain and people of all parties. However, I fear that nothing he can bring back from these negotiations, short of a proposal to leave us outside the European Union, will satisfy those whose desire is to see us in precisely that position. It is unwelcome because, unless the result is a vote to leave, it will settle nothing: the Scottish referendum must have at least taught us that. For how long will we consider the issue to be settled: 20, 30 or 40 years? I submit that some choices and decisions made by nations cannot constantly be subject to review. Shall we demand a vote on membership of NATO, which commits us to taking up arms to defend a fellow member? Are we to argue that NATO is a post-war construct, entered into in different times and different circumstances, and that its role is now different from that envisaged by the founders? These are arguments often deployed in connection with the European Union.
Moreover, the referendum is unwelcome because the uncertainty created by the possibility of a British exit is not necessary. A competitive Europe, yes; expanding the single market, yes; a less regulated Europe, yes; but none of that demands treaty change. It merely requires determined working with our partners to negotiate changes to individual pieces of legislation. We will not challenge the fundamentals that would involve treaty change. Everyone acknowledges that that is politically impossible, in terms of both the timescale and the likelihood of obtaining unanimity. Lastly, it is unwelcome —and this is perhaps the greatest cause of its being unwelcome—because it brings into question our membership at a time when we need to be at the heart of the Union, working with our partners on the great economic problems and the problems of immigration, refugees and security, to name but a few.
It is often said—and it has been said this afternoon—that the EU’s original aims have been achieved: that peace in Europe is no longer threatened. Yet the growth of nationalism, extremism and the surrounding security problems must surely mean that we cannot take any of that for granted. The European Union has been a great driver for peace and democratisation in the continent, and it still is: ask the countries that want to join. When I meet parliamentarians from other countries at meetings of the OSCE, they cannot understand why we are putting ourselves in the position of a possible exit, and they are concerned that it might happen. I urge my noble friends in the Government to ensure that we make clear our wish to remain, not just by words but by deeds.
The migration and refugee issue is but one case in point. I acknowledge all that the Government are doing and their reasons for doing it in the way that they are. However, could we not just acknowledge that many small countries in the European Union and many of its neighbours are struggling with problems that are testing their capabilities and resources to the limits? If we are not to take any of the refugees from Europe, could we not offer some logistical assistance on the ground to show that, while we are not part of Schengen, we are not blind to the problems of our fellow Europeans? We can offer aid to the Caribbean, assistance to the Saudis for their prisons, put soldiers on the ground in Sudan, and offer China money to spread the word about British football. A little help for the Greek islands would perhaps be a little more appropriate and would certainly help our negotiations and the building of alliances that have already been said to be so essential in the process on which we have embarked. The case for membership has to be made now, not at the end of the negotiations. The out lobby is already working flat out because it does not care about the outcome: the only issue is whether it can win the vote to come out.
Much has been said this afternoon about the franchise. It is a strange Bill whereby the citizens of three EU countries, who are not UK nationals—the citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus—will have a vote because they are Commonwealth citizens. In addition, there are non-British nationals—we do not know how many; at least, that is what I was told in answer to a Parliamentary Question I tabled in the previous Parliament—resident in the country who are Commonwealth citizens who have the vote. This is probably an issue for another time but, given that we are one of few countries, if not the only country, to allow non-citizens to vote in national elections, the parliamentary franchise needs an urgent review to examine the justification for allowing citizens of Ireland and the Commonwealth this right.
I hear the argument that to change the franchise might delay the vote, but in an age when you can be entered on the electoral roll only a few weeks before an election, some change should be possible, and it should be made in respect of UK citizens resident in other European Union countries. We already have a manifesto commitment to extend the franchise, and since the potential effects of withdrawal would impact on such UK citizens, they are entitled to have a vote.
As other noble Lords have said, we need independent factual information upon which the public may base their decision, and against which they may judge the statements of the in and out campaigns. We need to know what the Government will do if the vote is to leave. We need to know what they will seek. Voters must know what may change in the event of a no vote and the effect it will have on them. Crucially, it must be made clear that what rights are retained will depend on the outcome of the exit negotiations, and that it will be a matter not for us but for the other 27 member states. We will not have a vote.
I therefore hope that my noble friends will accept that although this Bill will, according to the conventions, pass, those conventions do not preclude amendments being sought and supported by many of us. There may be other Members from these Benches—not just me—who will attempt to improve the Bill where we consider it necessary. After all, those with a different view from mine fought their corner in the other place. I shall seek to fight mine here.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, with whom I broadly agree and have done for many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, opened this debate in a very clear way and expressed the views of the Government with regard to the Bill with clarity and balance. I hope that she will listen to some of the arguments that have been deployed today.
I am sufficiently old to recall the Second World War. When I was a boy, the street in which I lived in Glasgow was bombed and 12 people were killed. The next day, I was sent to the country to stay with the then chairman of Mowlem who had taken a house which was thought to be free from the likelihood of bombing. None the less, that experience has driven home to me the sense that the European Union has achieved a great deal for peace. It is now 70 years since the Second World War. I remember the French vetoing the European Defence Community and thinking that that was a tragedy.
The Government have put forward this Bill at a very awkward time. It seems to me that the public’s decision may be related more to the outcome of the renegotiations than to a sense of whether belonging to the European Union is in Britain’s interests.
The Prime Minister, for reasons that I fully understand, has not disclosed what his objectives are. That is understandable in light of the likelihood of the Europhobes saying that it was not enough. If he were to say what his objectives were, he might have to come to Parliament and to the people and say, “Well, I didn’t achieve all that I wanted to, but I have done my best”. We should have entered this national debate with a recognition that change—and change is needed—would take a long time, and that the best way to achieve it is not with one country taking on 27 others and saying, “Stand up to the mark”.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, was the initiator of the last convention on the future of Europe, which seems to have achieved a great deal, and was implemented in particular by the treaty of Lisbon. That is the way in which we should achieve change: not with one against 27 but by bringing together a consensus among people in the European Union, recognising where we need to go. However, the manifesto of the Conservative Party promised this to the people. I fear that if the English reject membership of the Union, Scotland will stand up and say, “We need another referendum”. That would be a disaster.
At this point, the Government have to give some indication of what the consequences of leaving the European Union would be. That has been called for by a number of people speaking in this debate and it would be something that the Government could take into account, following the 1975 example.
Membership of the European Union brings us into harmony with most of the 500 million people living in the Union, and gives us a voice and influence in negotiating with other countries, particularly the growing countries such as China and India, and the United States. If we were not in the Union, our voice would be barely heard, despite our history of global involvement.
So far as the Bill is concerned, the franchise is too limited. We should provide that 16 and 17 year-olds have the power to vote. We ought to follow the Government’s commitment in their own manifesto to give people who have lived beyond this country for more than 15 years an entitlement to vote. We should also entitle people who have come from the European Union and are European Union citizens to vote.
These are necessary changes in the Bill. They are not fundamental but they would make the outcome seem fairer and longer-lasting. We should not close the debate by saying that the referendum is final; instead, we—and particularly the Prime Minister—should initiate a convention on the future of Europe, because many of the changes that we want to see, including treaty change, cannot be achieved by 2017. That is a difficult year because of the French and German elections. Treaty change will be involved if we are going to see the European Union develop as we would wish.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, whom I greatly respect even though we often disagree on this topic. Before I begin I should make clear that, while I have a number of business interests set out in the register, in speaking today I will be setting out my personal views.
Given my contribution to previous debates in this House on this topic, you will not be surprised to learn that I strongly support the Bill and the proposed referendum. Indeed you may remember I introduced a Bill into the House in 2004 to bring about the promised referendum on the European Constitution, a referendum opportunity that was sadly missed. Like others, and given the huge changes in the European Union since 1975, I believe even more strongly now that a referendum is long overdue. I also strongly support the Prime Minister’s attempt to negotiate a more viable relationship with the European Union before the country is asked to decide on continued membership.
The fundamental reason for those views is the continued drive, reinforced by the Lisbon treaty, to move ever closer to a political and economic union among the majority eurozone and would-be eurozone members. It is essential that they do so to provide the cross-country financial support, common fiscal discipline and common social policies that they need for the euro to survive. We should not stand in their way but that means that the current position of the UK—bound by the same treaties and institutions—may become increasingly unsustainable. We are not and never will be part of the eurozone, so the reality is that we cannot be at the heart of a European Union that becomes increasingly focused on the governance and political decision-making of an integrated eurozone core. With most decisions on a wide range of EU competencies now taken by majority voting in the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, the UK risks being bound by laws imposed by a political group of which we are not a part and which in many areas has different interests, different legal, social and political traditions and often different attitudes towards free markets.
This should not be a question of win or lose or whether we can win a few concessions at the expense of other members, or indeed whether we can impose our vision of reform on the rest of the European Union. Rather it should be about whether we can get agreement across Europe to a new settlement that suits everyone: a new kind of treaty relationship between the UK and the eurozone members that makes it sustainable for us to become and remain a member of a wider but looser European Union club, alongside but apart from the eurozone core—a member of the European club but not part of or a brake on their ever-closer political union. That decision, when it comes, is of sufficient political and constitutional importance to justify putting it to the people in a referendum.
Those who oppose or perhaps regret this democratic process make two arguments. The first is that it is too complicated an issue to put to the UK electorate and risk coming up with the wrong answer; the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, called it a “reckless gamble”. I have no sympathy with that view. Indeed, I share the view that the attitude of European leaders holding that perspective over the last half century has caused the widening gulf between the leaders and the wider populations across Europe. The evolution of the European Union and particularly the creation of the eurozone has moved the project from a purely economic to a strongly political and constitutional union. You cannot force nations into shared sovereignty and pooled democratic oversight unless the people feel that they have become or are becoming one nation. Politicians who do not carry their electorate with them in those decisions rapidly forfeit their trust and ultimately risk exacerbating rather than removing national tensions.
The second argument I have heard is that the objective of staying in the European Union is a foregone conclusion, and that even raising the possibility of exit weakens our ability to play a strong role within the European Union and creates damaging uncertainty. For the reasons I have set out, I do not agree that remaining in the European Union without a significant change in the current treaty arrangements is ultimately sustainable from a political and constitutional perspective. Nor do I believe that there is a compelling economic argument to override those considerations. Of course, under any outcome it would be simplest to stay in the single market if we could do so while protecting the global competitiveness of the City of London and other key sectors from unwelcome regulation. However, whatever the nature of our relationship that emerges, it is clearly in the interests of both European and UK businesses to maintain a workable trade arrangement. Therefore the long-run impact of a change in our position will depend on whether any attempts to create trade barriers are offset by the potential benefits from being free to develop a less regulated and potentially more globally competitive UK economy. There are voices on both sides of that argument, but in the end our global competitiveness in the fast-growing markets outside the European Union must be a primary concern.
Equally, whether we are in or out of the European Union, we can and should maintain close co-operation with our European neighbours on non-economic matters of common interest, including of course defence and security. On the other hand, unless we seek to negotiate a new relationship and do so with the full understanding on both sides that a significant change is needed, we are unlikely to get an outcome that secures a sustainable position for the UK within the European Union in the longer term.
As for uncertainty, I am afraid that that is the price of living in a democracy. While uncertainty may mean that some business investment is held back in the short term, there are many reasons why the UK is likely to remain an attractive global location whatever the outcome, and ignoring the democratic process may be even more costly, as I have argued. I hope that a sensible debate will emerge so that, in the light of what the Prime Minister’s negotiations achieve, we can have a level-headed assessment of what future will best deliver a global vision for a competitive UK economy and a sustainable relationship with our European neighbours—a relationship that addresses the reality of the increasing economic and political integration of the eurozone within the EU club.
It is important that the House is seen as upholding the democratic process by endorsing the commitment of the Government to put the best achievable outcome of the EU negotiations to the electorate and abide by the result. We should give the Bill our full support.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, was right to mention the importance of our global competitiveness, and that is exactly why I believe it is right for us to stay in the European Union. Indeed, I am proud to be on the pro-European Benches making the patriotic case for Britain’s membership of the European Union, putting our country rather than our party first.
I was 19 in 1975 when I voted in the referendum. It was fitting that on the 31st anniversary of D-day we should have voted to remain part of the extraordinary community. I was young then, and so was the EEC, and we had been members for only two years. That referendum was important, but in the last 40 years the European Union has evolved and the world has changed and the referendum now is much more significant. I believe that this will be the most significant vote in my lifetime. It has huge implications for the future of Britain: for our ability to maximise opportunities and influence in the world, for economic growth, for the development and exploitation of the single market, for jobs and for our capacity to deal with the 21st-century challenges of climate change, international crime, terrorism and the movement of people from south to north, fleeing wars and fragile states.
The referendum is important for my generation but much more so for the young people of our country, for my children and my grandchildren. This is about their future and I strongly support the extension of the franchise to all UK citizens aged 16 and 17. My noble friend Lady Morgan in her excellent speech put forward, as did other noble Lords, cogent arguments as to why such an amendment on 16 and 17 year-olds should be accepted. The Government’s arguments simply do not hold water. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has said that this is a decision “for another day” but that is crazy—this referendum will affect the rest of young people’s lives much more than any vote in any general election, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said. It is a fantastic way to engage young people in our democratic system, to inform and energise them—as happened in the Scottish referendum—and to give them some power over their future. I am in favour of giving votes to 16 and 17 year-olds in any election, but I feel especially passionate about giving them a vote in this referendum.
I also support the arguments made to extend the franchise to others. The Government have clearly taken the decision to bring forward legislation to enable UK citizens living in other parts of the European Union to vote in future general elections, so what possible reason could they have for not allowing them to vote in the referendum which will have an enormous impact on their lives? I guess one silver lining might be—says she with tongue in cheek—that if the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, were resident in France for 15 years he might not be able to vote in the referendum. But that is for another day, I suppose.
Then there is the situation of EU citizens living in this country who are allowed to vote in local elections but again will not be able to vote in a referendum whose result could bring about profound changes in their lives. The Government say that they want to have the same franchise as in general elections. If that is the case, why do noble Lords have a vote—although is right and proper that we do? The Minister has said that we should follow the rules of previous referendums, but we are not, because the citizens of Cyprus and Malta will be granted a vote. Why them and not Spanish citizens? Of course I understand that the latter are not members of the Commonwealth, but two classes of EU citizen cannot be right, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, is interesting.
We know that some citizens are, and always will remain, in favour of continuing membership of the European Union, and that others are vehemently against membership, but there are millions who remain undecided and for them to decide how to vote they must be properly informed. That is why I strongly support the arguments in favour of the various reports that have been mentioned. Without the information that such reports provide, people will not be able to take an informed decision and the Government will be abnegating their duty to inform. Indeed, like everyone else in this country, we need to know what being out of the European Union would mean.
Like all member-state Governments, we are also in the dark about the issues on which the Prime Minister is seeking to renegotiate—baffled, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. Many have mentioned the Sunday Telegraph, from which we learned that Mr Cameron is seeking four key concessions from the EU, all of which seem rather sensible to me and none of which require treaty change. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, whatever success the Prime Minister will have—and I wish him well—it will not be enough for those whose mission in life is for us to leave. Anna Soubry said a couple of weeks ago at the Conservative party conference that it is their life, and that,
“they live it, they eat it, they drink it”.
I fear if the country votes to remain in the EU—which I hope—they will still not give up.
I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about the content of the renegotiations, but if that is not possible I would be grateful for her assurance that the Prime Minister is not seeking to dismantle social Europe in any way. We want and need a Europe that is working for working people, who want hope and a vision for the future. There have been many changes and reforms over the years. You just have to look at the proportion of the budget allocated to the CAP, which is still too much, and at good initiatives such as the Youth Guarantee Fund. There will and must be many more changes and reforms. We want change, but we want to bring it about through discussion around the table with our partners rather than by putting a gun to their head.
The Minister said that this Bill is about mechanics, which it is, and mechanics matter. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the lobbying Act does not prevent companies or third sector organisations making their views known about the European Union—the implications of either staying in or withdrawal—and providing information to their workforce, customers and membership? I have heard from several large companies that they are not willing to say what they feel about the referendum because of the lobbying Act.
With yesterday’s launch of the united Britain Stronger in Europe campaign and last week’s launch of the several out campaigns, it feels as if the referendum campaign has already begun. But there are many months to go and the passing of this Bill will be just the first step. The EU has faced huge problems in the last few years with the euro crisis and the possibility of Grexit, and now we have the refugee crisis, a humanitarian crisis which I believe is the greatest challenge to our values and the greatest challenge that the EU has ever faced. This summer’s confused response to a complex problem was not enough. It is further evidence that changes are needed in the European Union, yet I am utterly convinced that we are better together, finding common solutions to shared problems. I understand that some people are afraid of the future and find nationalism and nostalgia attractive, but in an increasingly interdependent world to retreat into the isolation of a small island simply does not make sense. We must put the future of our country first, working with our partners in the European Union to find answers to the challenges of the 21st century. I want to continue to belong to a Great Britain in the European Union rather than a little England.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness and indeed to listen to my noble friend Lord Blackwell, who is sitting next to me. I have been committed to Europe all my life, partly perhaps because my maternal grandparents were German, naturalised British, and maybe reflecting my experience of being evacuated during the Blitz down to the depths of Herefordshire, but more likely because of what I read about Winston Churchill’s great desire after the war to set up the Council of Europe to ensure that Europe had jaw-jaw rather than war-war. Whatever the reason I have been consistent in my views. I worked overseas for a number of years and when I came back in 1963 I joined the Young European Managers Association. That loyalty was of course tested soon after I was elected in the marginal seat of Northampton South in 1974 with the grand majority of 141. In 1975, as all noble Lords will know, we had the last referendum. I worked particularly hard in Northamptonshire because it was not a foregone conclusion then what the result would be, and it is not now. However, it was a success, and indeed I put a little polish on the “Keep Britain in Europe” poster that I still have in the downstairs loo.
It was my decision as an MP to join the Council of Europe in 1983, rather than being dragooned into it, and I served for eight years. I am proud of a typical success that happened when I was there; it concerned the tragedy of the “Herald of Free Enterprise”. It was my committee on the health side that took up the sword to find a common protocol across Europe for autopsies, and it is an indication of how successful individual members can be when we work with others in that environment.
Lastly, as Chairman of Ways and Means in another place, it was my privilege to take the Maastricht Bill through the House, involving 25 days, four all-night sittings, four clauses and more than 500 amendments. Somehow or other, although people knew my background and involvement in Europe, I was not criticised at any point for my handling of that Bill.
However, that fundamental belief cost me dearly in 1997. The late Jimmy Goldsmith, with his “get out of Europe” policy for the Referendum Party, decided to have a candidate in my constituency. He succeeded in getting 1,405 votes, just 2.5% of the poll but enough to unseat me by 744 votes—much, I have to say, to the surprise of the Labour candidate. The Referendum Party candidate, in his speech at the count, said words to the effect of, “I came here to kick out the pro-European Tory. I’ve done the job and now I’ll go back to London”. Thus ended my career in another place.
Against that background and as an aside, I find it quite extraordinary that my dear party has chosen another Goldsmith as a prospective Mayor of London, knowing his views on Europe and indeed his views on a third runway at Heathrow, which is so vital to the success of London.
I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Prime Minister’s determination to make the EU work better for all the people of Europe. That needs to be emphasised. It has to work better because, as we have seen recently, there has been the situation in Greece, huge levels of unemployment in many member states and, frankly, a shameful lack of any coherent policy over refugees.
As we all read in the weekend papers, it would appear that there are four key demands: first, to get Brussels to make an explicit statement that will keep us out of the European superstate; secondly, an explicit statement that the euro is not the official currency of the EU but that we have a multicurrency union, thereby protecting the pound; thirdly, a red card system to bring back some powers from Brussels; and, fourthly, a so-called new structure reducing the dominance of the big nine.
Of course I am not doing the negotiating, but it seems to me that the first two points should be obtainable. However, I find the third and fourth a little too imprecise. Surely we should consider some specifics, and two come to my mind. The first is that in my view the City of London is absolutely fundamental to the success of this country—not only its position in world finance but all that it means for employment and the success of the United Kingdom. Frankly, it must, in the ultimate, be under the control of this country and not shackled by Brussels. The second is the policy of the free movement of labour. Of course I understand it and see it as a cherished view of many in Europe, but somehow or other it is not working and it really does need to be reviewed. Migration, which is so prevalent in the press today, is something that we have to get a grip of and find some means of controlling without totally undermining the freedom of movement of labour.
Personally, I would push for safeguards in just those aspects that are fundamental to the UK economy rather than try to change any of the headline missions of the existing treaty, unless of course we see the emergence of new missions, such as the European army, which is totally unacceptable to me. I assume that my noble friend Lord Hill, as a Commissioner, will be deeply involved. I have complete faith in his patience and dogged persistence, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will send him certainly my best wishes and, I suspect, the best wishes of the whole of your Lordships’ House.
At heart, as the House probably knows, I am an ex-ad man who held a marginal seat for nearly 25 years. As such, I want to see a clear communication strategy with some exciting benefits sold to the British people. I want them to be communicated with. I do not want to read a lot of knocking copy; I want to hear the positives—the benefits of staying in on an adjusted basis, as we have talked about. I want to appeal to all age groups and to all sections of society across all the media. Frankly, from my point of view, the referendum should be held under the current Westminster franchise but with two parties added to it. One—your Lordships’ House—has already been agreed. I think that we should have a vote in general elections in any case, as I have said many times. The other is those of our citizens who work within Europe. Personally, I would not wait until the end of 2017. That is too long for any campaign. We should vote in 2016 early in the summer with the sun on our backs. I say good luck to my noble friend Lord Rose and his team, and I thank them for the work they are going to do.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Indeed, I enjoyed his speech and agreed with much of what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, may be surprised to hear that I agree with him about referendums. He is absolutely right that in a parliamentary democracy it is up to Parliament to weigh up the issues and make decisions, but the time comes when a referendum may be necessary. For example, for a very long time all the parties in Parliament have agreed that we should remain in the European Union. However, there is great concern about it in the country, and perhaps not a majority but a huge minority believe that we should leave the Union because it is not good for our country. Under those circumstances, it is right to hold this referendum, because the powers that be—the parties—need some guidance and that is what the people will give them, whichever way they go.
When I took part in the debates on the Referendum Bill in 1975 in the other place, I really did not dream that I would be involved in another one in this place 40 years later. Of course, in 1975 it was a Labour Government Bill; this is a Conservative one. In 1975, there was little experience of referendums. We hardly ever had them; indeed, I do not think that at that stage we had had a national one. We had some in Wales about pub opening times, but not in England. Today, through experience, we have a better understanding of how referendums should be organised. So this Bill is a much better one and it is even better as a result of debate and amendments made in the House of Commons. However, it is a bit late. There should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty but that was denied to this country by the then Prime Minister. That was the time when the referendum should have been held, so this one is a little bit late.
The Bill before us is, I believe, satisfactory in most respects and it does far more than the 1975 Act to ensure fairness. It ensures that one side of the argument is not outspent by the other, as was the case in 1975, when the no side was outspent by the yes side by about 20:1. In spite of that, one-third of people voting still voted to come out. I also hope that the Bill will preclude foreign organisations such as the CIA from intervening in the referendum campaign, and likewise the European Commission and other EU institutions.
I shall not go into the arguments for and against remaining in the EU—we have heard a lot of them this afternoon—except to say that this referendum is about a different organisation from that which was voted upon in 1975. Then, it was perceived as a vote to stay in a common market. Today, people will be voting to remain in a Union that already has significant powers over the governance of the United Kingdom and seeks further powers through the ever-present mantra of an “ever closer union”. Those of us who tried to point out that joining the EEC, or Common Market, would lead to a loss of UK sovereignty were derided and insulted by our opponents as ignorant little Englanders. Yet we were right. Treaty by treaty, powers have been transferred to Brussels and we have all been made citizens of the European Union.
I was hoping that we could conduct this referendum without name-calling and insults, but, unfortunately, the leader of the campaign to stay in has set the tone of the campaign by accusing Eurosceptics of being unpatriotic. I wonder whether he knows the meaning of patriotism when he comes out with a stroke like that. He should be warned that there are some Eurosceptics who are experts at insults, but we do not want to use them. I hope that that will be understood.
The referendum is, above all, about who governs Britain. I hope that, when people vote, they understand that.
For myself, I was opposed to joining the EEC. In fact, I made the first speech about it when I was a prospective candidate in the Newbury constituency, of all places, at a place called Woolhampton, in 1962; I have not changed my view since then. I have opposed every treaty extending its powers, and remain convinced that the United Kingdom would thrive outside the EU and regain the full power to govern ourselves through our own Parliament and institutions, which have been established over the centuries.
I want to ask the Minister one question, which I hope she will be able to answer. If the Prime Minister is unable to obtain the changes that he needs, that are relevant and that will ensure we retain our sovereignty, would he be prepared to recommend that we leave the EU? I hope the Minister will be able to answer that, but I appreciate it is not an easy question, especially bearing in mind that the Prime Minister will not tell us exactly what he is going to negotiate about.
Having said that, I support the Bill and look forward to taking part in its further stages.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, a good number of noble Lords have already spoken and some are still to speak. I think that this is the longest debate I have seen in my first year in this House, which is very interesting.
I am a businessman by profession. Unlike many noble Lords, I have not been an elected politician in the other place. For that reason, I focus on the bottom line. There has been, and will be, much discussion of principles during this debate, but I want to bring the business and economic reality to the fore.
I have heard many of my Eurosceptic friends expound on the glorious sunny uplands that will lie beyond us until we vote to leave the European Union. We can be like Norway and Switzerland, they say. The hardest part of this to understand is when they turn to me and expect me to support their case. I have been told that a Britain in this situation could refuse free movement. If so, why have Switzerland and Norway both declined to do so? Why do both have a higher percentage of foreign EU nationals than Britain?
However, immigration is of secondary concern to me. When it comes to the economic realities, a UK outside the EU would not be participating in the drawing up of EU regulations, which would affect my business and others. A UK outside the EU would not be making the voice of its business community heard in the regulations that we have to live by. As for negotiating our own trade deals, we would be negotiating as a small country. Do my honourable colleagues think that a UK-China trade deal, between 64 million and 1,357 million people, would be a good deal, or do they, as I do, suspect that we would be steam-rollered? We need to buy into Europe and the TTIP. The best deal for our country is undoubtedly within the European Union. However, let me be honest: there are things that I would like to see changed.
I was relieved when, some two weeks back, the European Court of Justice upheld the right of government to stop prisoners voting in elections. What worries me is that the UK could have been liable for challenges and fines in those courts, had the ban been struck down. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will renegotiate a package in which the supremacy of British law, made in this and the other place, will be recognised. We also need further safeguards for the firms of the City of London and the wider financial sector in this country. EU regulations on these matters disproportionately affect Britain, as a country that is reliant on financial services for over 20% of our exports. We need to be more forthright in protecting our interests here. Our noble friend Lord Hill has been an excellent voice for British interests on the Commission, and I applaud his ongoing efforts in this area.
On a broader point, we must secure safeguards for countries like ours that will not sign up for deeper integration, federalism or the euro. We have natural allies who are not in the euro and do not desire more integration. The Prime Minister must continue his efforts to achieve substantial change with their help. A two-speed Europe is preferable, but not at the cost of being excluded from the crucial decision-making that the EU does. I have full faith in the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, and that Britain will make the right choice to stay in when the referendum outlined in this Bill is held. I support the Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the leitmotiv of this debate seems to be “Come back, Harold Wilson, all is forgiven”. He may have kidded the rest of us sometimes, but I do not think he ever kidded himself. I only wish that were true of his successor in 10 Downing Street today.
My qualification, such as it is, for speaking is a little along the lines of that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in that I wrote the TUC pamphlet in 1975, saying, “Vote no”. Albeit brilliantly argued, two-thirds of our members voted yes. That is the sort of thing one tends to remember. Jack Jones subsequently said to me, “I thought I asked you to write a popular pamphlet saying, ‘Vote no’.” I said, “I did, Jack, I did.” He replied, “Well, it wasn’t very popular, was it?”
The trade union movement has now, I think it fair to say, come to terms with the reality of multinational but accountable capitalism. I say “but accountable”. There is a question mark there. I hope no one in this Chamber thinks there should be any withdrawing of the degree of accountability of multinational capitalism, be it Volkswagen, which we have been very conscious of in the past few days, or, indeed, the hedge funds. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that we do not want people financed according to the ratio that applied in 1975, but it seems that hedge funds are now the epitome of our national interest. Are they not multinational, or does he not want any of the money coming from the hedge funds? That is a rhetorical question, but he will forgive me for that.
We want a debate with proper rules of engagement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
I am very sorry to interrupt, but I do not quite understand the reference to hedge funds. I do not think I made any reference to hedge funds.
Lord Lea of Crondall
The noble Lord did not make a reference to hedge funds, but the point I am making is that, according to the papers, there is a very prominent role for hedge funds in financing the “get out” campaign. I assume that he is not unhappy to take their money.
Lord Lea of Crondall
One of the most complicated points we have been discussing is describing what “out” looks like. It is a genuinely difficult problem. There are two issues which are very hard to separate out. First, as the FT says today, Paris, Berlin and Brussels are increasingly exasperated about what Britain wants. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said he was baffled by the negotiating strategy. The problem is that it is very hard to pin down what the “out” position would be and what, therefore, is the correct comparison with the “in” position.
People such as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, are not really interested in renegotiation. He makes no bones about it: he wants out. But there are others who say it depends on the outcome of the renegotiation. I think it is fair for us to give more thought to what it is that the British people will be looking at. They will be able to look at what “in” means a lot more easily and unambiguously than what “out” means, so I want to spend my other four minutes on what “out” might mean.
I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely, who said that the Office for Budget Responsibility or an organisation of that ilk could look at some of the economic consequences. Of course, the rest of the picture is very hard to give to the OBR or Whitehall. It is far too speculative, and it probably will be a picture of a future period, let us say in three years’ time, involving a vote to say “out” and further negotiation with the countries of the 28 as to what “out” actually means.
As Donald Rumsfeld said, there are known knowns and known unknowns, and there are both types in this quandary as to how we present what “out” looks like in an objective and unambiguous way. The answer is that we do not know, because the negotiation beginning now would have to be followed by another negotiation about what “out” actually meant in terms of customs, tariffs, industrial standards and so on.
The throwaway line of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, about the EU raising trade barriers against us as some sort of eccentric thing to do—that is only the converse of our getting out. If we think that the trading arrangements within the EU have no substance, being out of the EU will not present us with any difficulties, because according to his hypothesis, if we were out, there would be no change at all. Thus, we all disappear, chasing our own tails. If that is the position, clearly it is misleading. Getting out would have some consequences. We have only Greenland to go on at the moment, and that is a slightly odd comparison, given that it has just a few thousand people and millions of fish, and Denmark controls its foreign policy. Before the referendum, we must give more thought to how the “out” question can be better identified.
I conclude with one quick point about the franchise. The dog that has not barked today, and it is an important one, is the dire state of the electoral register. In many places—but equally, in the inner circles—it is a scandal. Will the Government agree to examine the steps that could be taken with the electoral authorities to address this deepening problem? It is not a million miles away from the other work that they will be doing if the amendment on age limitation and so on is accepted.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, the evening is getting on, and it is clear that we are going to have a referendum and that we know the wording of the question, so I do not want to talk about that. Rather, I would like to talk, like a number of other speakers this evening, about the choice facing British voters. What, in the real world, are we choosing between when we answer the question? This is not a hypothetical matter. It is not a university exam question.
On the one hand, a positive response to the question “Should this country remain in the EU?” is that one is voting either for the status quo or the status quo as amended by the current negotiations. What actually, however, is the alternative? Presumably, negotiation on a whole range of issues will have to begin. It is clearly not possible, after all, to go back to the world of the late 1960s. What is going to happen? How long is it going to take? What is going to be the opposite of the status quo, as it might be amended? We simply do not know.
An appealing argument, which I think will be attractive to many people, goes along the lines of, “I would like to leave, but on certain conditions. If not, no thank you”. How does the referendum help someone who thinks like that? How do you vote if that is your view?
Another idea, which has been canvassed quite widely, is that we should enter into some kind of associate membership. Were that to be a possibility, what is its compatibility with the questions in the referendum? Which way do you vote? It certainly is not clear to me.
In my experience of these matters, which is based on 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament, different people have very different perceptions of the various aspects of what being in the European Union is all about. Some think that the UK constitution is a sacrament; others think that the European project is sacramental; and most people do not think either of those things. Some people think that the EU is too expensive; others think it is good value. Some think that it is insufficiently Thatcherite and others think that it is not adequately Corbynista. Some think that it is undemocratic and interferes too much; others think that it is nothing like as bad as the UK system, with its extensive use of secondary legislation. Some people think that the CAP is an appalling French conspiracy, while others maintain that is the last bastion of British rural values under threat from that tyrannical tsunami of 21st-century urbanism. And then there is the whole question of the union that is the United Kingdom.
The debate and the issues are multifaceted and are perceived very subjectively. I am concerned about how people are going to begin to set out in their own minds the reality of arrangements governing matters, some of which do not run at all with the grain of traditional political thinking in this country. For many people who have not made up their minds—I understand that that is about a third of voters—the problem will be knowing where to start.
Having worked for 10 years in the European institutions, I still have contacts in Brussels—if I might touch on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I looked into the question because I have a European parliamentary pension and it is paid regardless of any political statement I may make about the European Union of any kind, so I am told. From those contacts, my intelligence is that there is a considerable body of good will towards resolving what one might describe as the “UK question”, partly because many recognise, at least to some extent, the general applicability and desirability of the points we are making, and partly from a genuine wish not to lose us. However, it is a bit like marriage. Any fool can get married and any fool can get divorced; it is the subsequent disputes over money and the children which so often degenerate into drawn-out vindictiveness and extreme acrimony—that is where the trouble starts. This indicates to me the difficulty of negotiating a post-referendum withdrawal.
The Bill promises to transfer in a particular case the type of decision-making traditionally exercised by government with Parliament and to hand it over to the electorate. It is a many-sided, complicated and esoteric bundle of issues which need careful consideration. This is something which Governments traditionally have always had to deal with, but they have always been able to rely on the Civil Service to provide them with impartial advice. Even if it is not followed—and it is not always by any means—it is inevitably of considerable help in resolving the tricky questions. In this case, the electorate are being asked to take a decision without any equivalent support. It is absolutely clear that the referendum campaign will be open season for every political mountebank and snake oil salesman around and, no doubt, they will be arguing on all sides of the debate. I believe that government has a general responsibility and particular duty of care to the individual elector to enable them to have access to at least some baseline information about the matter in hand, of the kind that the Civil Service gives to government day in, day out. People may or may not use it, but providing it will assist and improve the political credibility of the referendum’s outcome, since it will be less easy for the losers to argue that the voters were misled or got it wrong through ignorance.
As we know, one of the ostensible purposes of the referendum is to settle the question of EU membership. I am very far from sure that it will—the last one did not—and anticipate that the matter will remain open until one or other option is generally concluded no longer a realistic possibility. That was the case in the 18th century over the whole question of Jacobitism, which seems to me to be the closest parallel. Ensuring that our electorate as a whole have access to some basic baseline information, as was the case in 1975, is an essential aspect of all this, so I urge the Government to give the public similar relevant information.
The political landscape over which the referendum will be fought is in many aspects unfamiliar. When in an unfamiliar landscape, a decent map helps. I was in Palermo 10 days ago and I had never been there before. If I had not had a decent map, I dare say that I would still be wandering around the byways, or even worse. If such information were provided, it would be analogous to what the Civil Service does for the Government day in, day out. If it is good enough for the Government, it is good enough for the people.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, we are debating the Second Reading of this Bill after the in campaign and both out campaigns have already been launched. Against the backdrop of campaigning on the referendum having de facto already begun, we owe it to the electorate to work constructively and quickly to ensure that this is the very best Bill possible by improving it where necessary, as so many other noble Lords have said today. The Bill could and should be improved both by extending the franchise and in terms of the information provided so that people can make as educated a choice as possible. In that regard, I am certain that we shall have more detailed discussions on information and reports available to the electorate during the later stages of the Bill. However, I shall today concentrate the majority of my remarks on the other key area where I believe that the Bill needs to be further improved; that is, extending the franchise beyond those currently covered by the Bill.
Last September, when my niece, Emma, was 17 and in her final year at school, she was able to take an active part in the referendum campaign in Scotland. When I spoke to her last Sunday afternoon to ask her about the Scottish referendum, she said that being able to vote was a very positive experience. She said, “We felt valued because we were being consulted on something that would have an impact on our whole future, and our views were being taken seriously. All the discussion and events ensured that we were well informed and that we were clued up on the facts and arguments. Having a vote at 16 and 17 really engaged a lot of people in politics who otherwise wouldn’t have been interested, because it targeted us at the right age and, as a result, I think we’re all more likely to vote in the future and to become more involved in politics”. If the outcome of the Scottish referendum had a major impact on the future of our young people in Scotland, and it was therefore decided to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote on that future, surely that argument applies even more strongly to the referendum on our future membership of the European Union. Indeed, in the Scottish context, not to do so might become a further bone of contention in the already febrile political debate in Scotland.
There are those who argue that we should not give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote because “they are just children” or they are not mature enough to vote. But if at the age of 16 you are responsible enough to serve your country, get married and pay taxes, you are surely old enough to vote on an issue that will have such a big impact on the future of your country. We should recall that, 100 years ago, not dissimilar arguments were being used then about extending the franchise. Young people are not just the voice of tomorrow. As the 16 and 17 year-olds demonstrated through their passionate and articulate engagement in the Scottish referendum campaign, they are the voice of today. On the vital question of our membership of the European Union, one of the most significant and long-lasting decisions to be made in this country for years, that voice deserves to be heard and given effect with a vote. Given the strength of feeling expressed today on this issue, I hope that we will receive a positive response from the Minister, even though she is currently absent from the Chamber.
To conclude, I want to make one other broad political point. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will fight a separate in campaign, and for many nationalists the dream result would be for Scotland to vote to remain in and for England to vote to leave, thereby triggering a second referendum on Scottish independence. I would love to believe that the First Minister would for once put the wider good of the United Kingdom first, but I fear that narrow nationalist politics will prevail. So I make a plea to the Government, as well as to the political leadership of the in campaign, that they should be exceptionally sensitive to the Scottish dimension in this referendum. It would be tragic if the vote on one union led to the break-up of the other. Deciding on the franchise for this referendum on the EU is hugely important and these decisions should not be taken lightly, but if this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, as has been said by so many other noble Lords today, to decide on our relationship with the European Union, we should extend that franchise as widely as possible to include those whose lives and futures will be directly affected.
Lord Plumb (Con)
My Lords, I declare my support to remain in the European Union. I support the Bill, generally, and look forward to the debate in which we will have the opportunity for much discussion on detail. I have doubts about the referendum and therefore I wholly support the points made by my noble friend Lord Bowness.
I first got involved in 1972, 43 years ago. At that particular time I was involved with the various organisations existing in Europe such as COPA, the organisation representing the council of professional agriculturalists in the EEC. It was a very powerful group of Europe’s farm organisations. In 1979, I entered the European Parliament as a Conservative Member, and for 20 years I was, like others in the Chamber, heavily involved in the work of the Parliament, holding various offices, including two and a half years, I am proud to say, as President of the Parliament, voted for by the Members of that Parliament themselves.
It was a great experience. It was often frustrating, living through routine crises, but there were only half the number of countries at that time that there are in the EU now. It was a challenge. Imagine the challenge at that particular time dealing with many people across that chamber whom not many years before we had been fighting. It was a case of reconciliation with those people, which mattered to all of us at that time, as we felt we were trying to do something to unite Europe, which had been at war for so long.
The European Parliament has now increased its power and its responsibilities, as it shares decision-making with the Commission and the Council. I would like to see much closer links with Members of this House and the other place to discuss future developments with Members of the European Parliament. There was a fine example in Denmark in the Folketing—this used to happen, so I presume it is still the same now—where every Tuesday morning the Danish Members of the European Parliament would appear before the whole of their Parliament to be questioned or have a discussion on matters of concern at that particular time. We seem to totally ignore them here in this country and from our respective Parliaments. I would like to close those links.
I am aware of course of the work of our European committees and the excellent reports of our seven sub-committees. They deserve more recognition and publicity than they get at present. I am sure that they are considering many of the issues that we are now debating, producing helpful and positive information. I entirely welcome what the chairman of the European Union Committee said earlier, my noble friend Lord Boswell.
As of today, we should be discussing not what we are discussing now but our commitment to improving the single market, freeing up trade and removing the paper chase, red tape and regulations. Although we often think we are, we are not alone among the 28 nations. Many of them feel exactly as we do about similar things and I speak from experience in saying that. Setting out facts and effecting the movement of people, goods, services and capital and so forth are the things that we could build on given the time, opportunity and the will to do so.
It is an irony that there is so much pressure in some quarters to divide and split up the United Kingdom, ultimately making it the most federal country in Europe, while Europe is providing a single market particularly benefiting the United Kingdom. It would take years, as others said earlier today, to dismantle our present commitments and it would be extremely expensive to buy our way out of the club of nations. The effect, in my opinion, would be totally disastrous. Those who say that we can continue with that trade irrespective of the commitments that were made totally ignore the fact of the reaction and attitude of other countries towards trade once we pull out.
I wholly support what other noble Lords said earlier today. It is remarkable as one travels around the rest of the world, as I did when I was President of the European Parliament, to see the respect that other countries had for Europe. I was not at that time seen as a British citizen going to those countries; I was seen as the President of the European Parliament, and they marvelled at the opportunity therefore to bring together countries that had been enemies for so long.
My particular area, as noble Lords know well, and I cannot ignore it, is an interest in agriculture and the common agricultural policy. Whether we like it or not, that common agricultural policy will be debated, because so many spurious figures are bandied about of what this costs the nation and individuals. I have even heard Members of the other House saying that 50% of the money from the common agricultural policy goes to France. That of course is not true. When we start discussing this in Committee, I hope that the facts will be there. I hope that the Government can produce those facts and help us to see what are the clear facts of what it is—not what some people or what the press might say it is, but what it actually is—so that we can base our arguments on the truth and not on the fiction that is so often bandied about.
Of course, the common agricultural policy is difficult to govern in the sense of making one policy for 28 countries. We cannot determine quantity when we are dealing with living and growing things in the climate that we have. Why do we have the policy and why only for agriculture? The very nature of food production makes policy adjustments difficult, causing complications and distorted trading. It is to create a fairer market in an endeavour to avoid inflated food prices. I hope that we can get rid of the costs that are bandied about in the views that will be expressed during the time that we have to prepare for the referendum.
I give one figure from the common agricultural policy budget to make a comparison for those suggesting that France receives all that money. I will give the difference between France and Britain. France actually receives 16.6% of the total 43% that is allowed for agriculture, because it has 16% of the farmed area of the European Union. The United Kingdom receives 7.1% since we have 9.4% of the farmed area. The rest of the 43% of the overall budget goes to the various other countries at different levels for agriculture. Other sectors such as energy and transport receive subsidies that are funded fully or partially by government and therefore receive a smaller percentage of the overall budget. The agricultural budget actually makes up— remember this please—less than 1% of public expenditure in all member countries, where they spend three times more, for example, on defence. That is a fact, and it is a very different story from the one that we so regularly hear.
The importance of agriculture and horticulture production amounts to considerable business, given the 142,000 businesses involved—more than the number in the motor trade, education, finance and insurance. We have a self-sufficiency ratio estimated to be 60% of all food production, but it is interesting to look at the ratio of different countries. Imports exceed exports, so we have to do more to compete with France, whose food ratio is 120%; in Germany, it is 93%, and here it is 60%. We have a lot to make up to be really competitive.
I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned, in what I thought was a good speech, the fact that the future is there to be changed not for us but for young people who are coming into business. I know that there are more young entrepreneurs coming into agriculture who are prepared to face that challenge, hopefully with the opportunity to combine practice with science and to put agriculture at the forefront of our economy in the European Union. They need to know, and they ask me regularly, what future there is. What can I say when there is this uncertainty as to what is to change and as to what will replace what we have now? To improve and simplify our existing policies must be our aim, not to cause chaos by withdrawal and upheaval. We shall enjoy getting more involved in that in Committee.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I intend to address this question, as I have been very pleased to see many colleagues on both sides of the House have done today, on the basis that, although I do not like referenda very much in principle—I very much agree with the oft-quoted remarks of both Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher on the subject—we now face a situation in which we have a Government who have won an election and who have an electoral mandate for this referendum, and we should settle down and do our duty.
As I see it, our duty is threefold. One is to make sure that the technical arrangements for the referendum are robust and fair. Secondly, we must have the appropriate franchise—a lot of very good comments have been made in today’s debate about that, particularly in relation to the franchise being given to EU citizens resident in this country and the reduction of the age of election to 16. I hope that those points will be taken further in Committee and on Report. Thirdly, and most importantly—vitally, of course—we must have an honest, open and comprehensive debate, so that the British public can make a choice which is considered and focuses on the essential facts.
For that purpose, and in the course of the debate which started here this morning and through the afternoon in this House, it is very important indeed that any kind of error, spurious or manifest, or any kind of spurious argument—any kind of what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, memorably called “tosh” this morning—should be exposed and challenged. Indeed, I intend to expose and challenge a certain amount of the noble Lord’s own tosh in the course of my brief remarks.
One of the essential facts that no one has ever been able to get away with ignoring, thank God, is that between 3 million and 4 million people in this country work for firms whose majority of customers are somewhere in the European single market. That is so important. The Eurosceptics have always accepted that they cannot possibly come forward credibly with policies that would involve us leaving the single market. Therefore, they have always said, “Don’t worry—we’ll leave the European Union, but we won’t leave the single market”. That needs to be probed very thoroughly indeed, because it goes to the heart of the national economic interest in the matter. A year or two ago, the Eurosceptics were saying, “That’s all right—we’ll join EFTA, or we’ll do a bespoke deal, rather like Switzerland”, which actually is not an offer. That was the sort of thing one heard from the Eurosceptics.
Then it came very much to their attention, and they could not avoid the fact, that to join EFTA or to do a Swiss-type deal would involve us being put in a position of impotence—indeed, a humiliating position—in which we had to accept all the rules of the single market as they were decided by other people, without any right or opportunity to take part in their formulation, and have to continue to pay a financial contribution to the European Union. Even the IoD, the Institute of Directors, which was a hotbed of Euroscepticism at one time, realised that that was a quite unacceptable solution for this country.
So the Eurosceptics have now started saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said this morning, “Oh no, we won’t go down that road; we’ll do a better deal, a better deal than anybody”. If anybody says that, one’s suspicions are naturally aroused. Why would we be able to do a better deal? “Well”, we are told, “because we actually buy more from the rest of the European Union than it buys from us”. In other words, they are more dependent on us than we are on them, so we have them around the neck and they have to accept our terms. Nothing could be further from the truth; nothing could be more damaging to us going into any kind of negotiation with the rest of the European Union because it is based on complete falsehood, on a logical fallacy. Trade dependence is a function of relative dependence on exports to the countries concerned—relative exposure to those particular exports in relation to the total GDP.
Let me give an example, so that everyone can appreciate the obvious logical point. Micronesia might be buying £1 million-worth of goods every year from China and selling China only £100,000 worth of goods in the course of a year but, of course, it would have absolutely zero leverage on China. It does not matter that there would be a 9:1 relationship between exports and imports between Micronesia and China. It does not matter that Micronesia would have an enormous balance of payments deficit with China. What is important is the relative position, and we know what the relative position is. The European Union’s exports to the United Kingdom are 2.5% of EU GDP, whereas our exports to the rest of the European Union are 15% of our GDP. So it is a relationship of 6:1. We have a 600% disadvantage in this matter—no basis at all for negotiating some special deal.
Even if we could negotiate some such special deal, which I think is most unlikely, it would not solve an essential problem which is the investment problem that is critical for the future. It is no use talking about the present; we have to talk about the future. The investment problem is that anybody who is putting new capacity somewhere into the single market to service the single market as a whole must be assured that they have a host Government that have some influence with Brussels in the legislative and regulatory process. Otherwise, of course, they would be completely unrepresented, which would be completely unacceptable. We have had that message clearly from, for example, Japanese car manufacturers based in this country and American pharmaceutical companies based in this country. They need to feel that, if they are coming here, the British Government will take up their cause when required in Brussels. It is even more important in financial services, where we have such an enormous amount of foreign investment. That problem can never be resolved if we walk away from the actual membership of the European Union and its constitutional legislative structures, which is what the Eurosceptics are proposing.
It may be because they are subconsciously so aware of the weaknesses of their case that, increasingly, the Eurosceptics try to move on from a discussion of the future of the single market to one outside the single market. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, this morning say, “Oh no, much more important is what is going on outside the single market”. I took note of one of his quotes, which I hope I still have. I must try to find it because it is really quite memorable. He said, “Because of our history, we have better worldwide links”. The idea is that the solution is: even if we do not do so well in the single market, we will do even better outside it.
That is based on three mistakes. It is based on a bad business policy; it is certainly based on an economic fallacy; and, it is based on an enormous piece of ignorance—quite extraordinary ignorance. The bad business judgment is the fact that the countries he was thinking of do not regard themselves as having a special relationship with us. I have met so many Indians who have told me that they have been so disappointed, frustrated and annoyed at British businessmen going out to India and thinking that they have an inside track because of British-Indian history. As a matter of fact, most Indians do not look at the Raj at all with the kind of rose-tinted, nostalgic spectacles that many Eurosceptics seem to wear.
China is a country where one has to be extremely careful because one is too easily associated with a country which imposed the unequal treaties and which burned down the Summer Palace in 1859. People are completely insensitive to this kind of problem. These countries are run by people who are highly intelligent, very sophisticated and who are going for value for money. They make hard-nosed economic decisions. So the idea that we have some special advantage in these areas is complete and utter rubbish. It is very deceptive and dangerous for British business. This pretentiousness is quite the wrong kind of advice to give to British business. They need to be much more realistic.
The economic fallacy is even more serious; it is very serious indeed. Far from there being a trade-off between being a part of the single market and having access to the worldwide markets beyond, there is a negative trade-off. It is not a question of having more of one and less of the other; if you have more of one, you have more of the other. The whole reason for the single market was because it would create a large internal market comparable to that which Japan and the United States enjoyed and which, at the time, we did not have in Europe. The idea that the single market would produce greater specialisation, larger firms and longer production runs has worked. It has produced economies of scale and enabled firms to carry higher overheads, particularly in the critical areas of marketing and research and development which are so important for the future. This has all come about based on having an effective single market. So the last thing we want to do is to say, “We do not need a single market; we can do better outside”. The opposite is actually the case. This is a very serious fallacy that clearly needs to be exposed thoroughly in the course of this particular campaign.
On the issue of ignorance, the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is one of the most knowledgeable and brilliant human beings I know—it is only in this area of Europe where he allows his emotions to take over and defeat his very formidable intellect—but he showed an extraordinary piece of ignorance, or at least negligence because he never mentioned it at all when he talked about the outside world, about the situation in which we trade. Apart from the United States, the world outside the single market is primarily within free trade agreements or trade and investment agreements negotiated between the EU and the markets concerned. The most recent ones were negotiated with Canada and Japan, and we are now engaged in the TTIP with the United States. If we left the European Union, the next day we would cease to be able to benefit from these trade agreements. Such agreements sometimes take, quite typically, five or six years to negotiate. They are enormously valuable. If we left them, we would immediately be at a handicap. We would immediately find ourselves paying tariffs or suffering other disabilities which our competitors in the single market were not doing. To negotiate something of our own would take years, and under no circumstances would the terms be as good because we would be offering a market of 60 million people and the EU would be offering one of 400 million. We would be the “demandeur”, so anyone could say “Ha ha! This is our price”.
This is a hopeless way forward and, if we go down this route, we will be betraying the country’s national interest. In my view, it is very important that these matters are gone into in considerable detail. If not, the British people are likely to make a decision which they would live to regret.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing this debate. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has, unfortunately for me, already attempted to demolish all the arguments I was about to put forward. My experience of having worked as a banker in Japan for 11 years leads me to believe that it is not as simple as he makes out. I am utterly convinced that I was seen primarily as a British person and only secondarily as a European. Although I was privileged to serve as a vice-chairman of the European Business Council in Tokyo, the other Europeans wanted me to do that job because I was British and because, as an Englishman, I would have more influence. The British Chamber of Commerce as a body was probably more influential than the European Business Council. So I have rather a different interpretation of how Europeanness and Britishness mix and complement each other.
Since 1975, the British people have had no opportunity to approve or reject the EU’s relentless march from being the Common Market—principally a free trade area that we joined in 1973—to something approaching a superstate: the European Union of today. In common with most noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the Prime Minister’s decision to allow the British people a vote on whether they wish to stay in a reformed EU. But we do not yet know how significant the reforms will be. The reforms most British people want involve the restoration of powers to this Parliament and a reduction in the number and reach of EU tentacles, which permeate every area of our national life and every arm of national and local administration.
At the same time, to avoid a further—perhaps fatal—euro crisis, many in Brussels and some of our EU partners, are also seeking to reform the EU, but the reforms they seek involve moving in the opposite direction. They want more fiscal integration and tax harmonisation—basically, the establishment of a single finance ministry for the eurozone. It seems to me that we will therefore become increasingly uncomfortable in remaining a member of the EU on the same basis as the integrating eurozone economies. It is not clear how the interests of the UK and other countries outside the eurozone can be protected. I look forward to the publication of the Chancellor’s document detailing how this can work, as reported in the Sunday Times. This will surely require a new structure for the EU itself, which ideally should recognise the reality of the current situation: that the UK is already a semi-detached member of the EU, as a non-participant in the most important aspect of the European project, the common currency, and also a non-participant in the Schengen agreement.
The Bill before us commits the Government to a referendum on what is still an unknown package of reforms. Is it not customary to publish a White Paper well in advance of a referendum, providing the voters with a clear explanation of what exactly they are voting on? Is it the Government’s intention to publish such a White Paper? Does the Minister agree that it should contain a section explaining in an impartial way the consequences of remaining in the EU and one explaining the consequences of leaving?
While I am still open to the possibility that our European partners will change their minds and allow us to retain our membership but withdraw from the political and judicial structures, it is most unlikely that the commitment to the necessary treaty changes can be obtained in time. Does the Minister agree that, if the leave campaign should prevail, the Government should negotiate a new trading and collaborative relationship with the EU which would preserve the single market and our free trade with the bloc? I am not sure whether this should be defined as a reconstituted EEA or EFTA, or even as a new class of associate trading member of the EU—in which case, does leave really mean leave? It is manifestly in the interests of our European partners to retain our open trade relationship with them even if we can no longer be part of their political project.
It is claimed by those who would advocate remaining a full member of the EU at all costs that our interests would be adversely affected if we no longer had a voice in the institutions of the EU that make the rules. But our voice has not been strong enough to prevent our being outvoted every single time we have objected to a proposal being considered in the European Council. With only 9.7% of the votes in the European Parliament, it is not surprising either that the United Kingdom MEPs, even if they could sometimes agree on anything, are powerless to protect British interests. In these circumstances, fundamental reform of the EU must provide a basis for the UK and other non-eurozone member states to escape the strictures and costs of the political and judicial institutions which are being expanded and developed to bring about ever-closer union, while remaining free trading partners on a basis similar to the current customs union.
There are many other areas where we must and will continue to collaborate with our European partners, but I believe that, in the global world that exists, we will be more successful and retain more influence in the world as a sovereign state. I also believe that our own financial sector regulators—the PRA, part of the Bank of England, and the FCA—should be restored to the position of sovereign regulators, no longer subject to the EBA, ESMA and EIOPA. This is essential in order to prevent further damage to our financial services industry. For example, the alternative asset management industry is already suffering from the application of the harmful and pointless Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. It is difficult to see how changes as fundamental as are needed can be obtained without treaty change. If the negotiated changes on which the referendum will be fought involve merely a promise of future treaty change, how can the EU and our European partners be trusted to deliver the promised changes in future?
I welcome the Government’s agreement that the purdah rules will apply during the campaign, but ask the Minister to tell the House what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the European Commission and the European political parties are similarly restricted. I would also like to hear the Minister’s answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Lamont in his excellent speech as to why the Government still insist on obtaining a partial exemption from the Section 125 rules. Will she also inform the House when the Government intend to publish the draft regulations?
My noble friend Lord Norton raised the question of a threshold. There was a 40% threshold requirement in the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum, but the problem is that if you have a threshold and only 39% of people vote, it does not settle anything. What happens next? You have to have another referendum, I suppose.
I have to agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson that the EU is a political project rather more than a trade project. I do not think that membership of the EU, or a different kind of trade-based relationship with it, will make much difference to our trade with the EU. However, escaping from the bureaucratic burdens placed on us by full EU membership, will, in my view, help us develop better and closer trading relationships across the world in this global age.
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the two great tragedies in this country ever since the previous referendum in 1975 has been the “them and us” mentality of many politicians in this country, and other people outside Parliament. That feeling, unfortunately, continues. It is a very strong manifestation of the feeling that all the other member states are different from us and we are exceptionally different in a merited sense that leaves them standing. The other tragedy is that this country is bedevilled by the worst press in Europe. Apart from a few moderate newspapers, I think that at least seven newspapers supported the Conservative Party in the last election and are owned by foreign-based owners who do not pay UK personal taxes.
I live in France and my friends involved in politics in Paris phone me and ask, “Why do you allow these foreigners to own newspapers in your country, with their corrosive message about the European Union?” Recently, Rupert Murdoch very kindly said that he was changing his mind a bit on Europe and might give a lead in that regard. However, in the mean time, the Express and the Daily Mail continue their campaign of poison on Europe. Most of their stories, particularly those on the front page but also elsewhere, are completely untrue and are not based on any realisable facts about any negotiations in the European Union. If you take the UKIP vote, at least 4 million people must have believed some of that stuff, but some of the others who do are Conservatives and Conservative MPs.
In addition to the other two tragedies that I have described, another tragedy is that the whole thing is a phoney exercise, as we know. We are all pretending. I sympathise with the Minister having to go through the charade of the referendum project. I think the Bill will get passed because people feel that it is inevitable and that, even if you do not like referendums and do not like a lot of the detail in the Bill, you have to support it for the sake of preserving our membership of Europe.
The other reason for this situation arising is that, in the enlarged version of the Bullingdon Club that is the Conservative parliamentary party in the House of Commons, a sufficient number of anti-Europeans has built up. The Prime Minister understandably wished to stabilise his position as a new opposition leader—a young, dynamic, new politician coming in from the background, who was not very well known. He sought to chat people up at Carlton Club dinners and elsewhere about how bad some aspects of Europe were, at the same time saying, of course, that he did not want Europe to be a bedevilling feature of the life of the Conservative parliamentary party. The two things were an astonishing dichotomy and we are still working through this exercise.
I dislike referendums intensely. I suppose the only exception would be if there were an existential decision for one part of the country, such as Scotland—a vote on leaving the wider United Kingdom. There is presumably no other way of doing it, to satisfy all chemical and psychological opinions, than having a referendum. We should think of the damage done by referendums each time we have them, when they are based on false arguments, as Harold Wilson’s was. That was designed to keep the Labour Party together, just as David Cameron now has this phoney exercise to keep his parliamentary party in the other place together. Every time you have a referendum that people know is not genuine, you undermine the authority of Parliament.
I muse on history. We have heard some very good speeches displaying historical common sense from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others on the need to think again about the future of Europe, what it means and our membership of it. It is not just economics and trade; it is wider than that and it is very important to the British people.
The difficulty, therefore, is always to make sure that we put the right arguments forward and make sure that the public have the benefit of hearing genuine arguments because we are contending with a press that will not bother to give the details about Europe. I am afraid to say that they are very lazy in the parliamentary Press Gallery. They do not want to know too much about it. They just want the British clash of parties and politicians to be the European story, rather than the real, underlying story of Europe. I was chairman of the Conservative group for Europe before the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. He mentioned his chairmanship. In those days, the Conservative Party was very enthusiastic about Europe. I worked at a very humble level with our then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, and remember his very poor French when he made the famous acceptance speech in Brussels, when people put their hands over their ears. None the less, the whole feeling and enthusiasm then was encapsulated by distinguished people such as Sir Henry Plumb, as he then was, now the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and we thank him for his speech today.
One has to think about the spirit of Europe, not just all the details. By the way, I hope that the Minister will take on board the plea made by so many noble Lords today that we should allow 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds to have a vote. I hope that the Government will reconsider that. There is much more that we will need to discuss in great detail in Committee in a fortnight’s time and then two weeks after that. I prefer to deal with just one or two points today that I think reinforce my suggestion that we get back to the spirit of Europe. Why are we afraid of Europe? Why are we childish about Europe? Why is it “them and us”? Why do not the Germans and the French fear a loss of sovereignty? I live in France as well, which is a very patriotic, nationalistic country, and sometimes very bloody-minded in pursuit of its own ends, as we know. Apart from members of the Front National and the Communist Party, which is much weaker now, everybody in France feels that being a member of the European Union is a natural and good thing.
Apparently, according to the historians, in 1880, people started to talk in the United States of the United States being one country—as “is”, rather than “are” denoting the individual states. Europe may never get to that position. It may remain composed of sovereign countries aiming to secure the greater good for everybody by dealing through integrated institutions, sometimes by majority voting but by unanimity as well. I say to Members who are not very keen on Europe that individual sovereignty—national sovereignty in the old sense—last existed in Britain probably in 1912, and even then, two years later, we were subject to a French commander-in-chief in the First World War, so this nonsense must be got out of our system.
I know that some people think this is too avant-garde a suggestion to make so late at night, by why are people in Britain afraid of the euro, as they are? They remember the humiliation of being driven out of the exchange rate mechanism in 1992 and they know that the euro is a very strong international currency, getting closer and closer to that of the United States as the main reserve currency in the world. Sterling, by the way, is 2% in terms of reserves. That is the choice we all face—that of being avant-garde and modern about Europe, and of supporting the young British backpackers who want to be European and study foreign languages. Why do not more parliamentarians speak foreign languages? Why do not more parliamentarians such as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, live abroad so that they know what it is like to be with foreigners? Why do we not have more knowledge of all these things that add up to the great European Union, which we need and must cherish? We should support this referendum Bill because we have no other choice, unfortunately, and make sure that we win with a huge majority.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I am wholeheartedly in favour of giving the British people a say about our relationship with the European Union. People can then decide what will be in the best interests of our country and the integrity of the resulting decision cannot be questioned. The last time this happened was 40 years ago. When you think of how much has changed, not just in our relationship with Europe but in every other facet of life, it is clear that it is time for the British people to be given their say again. The issue is of some emotion but we must not let ideology get in the way of reasoned argument. This referendum will be a pivotal turning point for our country. It will pave the way for many decades to come.
Most people agree that the European Union is in need of some reform. Put simply, too much power has been transferred to Brussels. Many laws should be given back to member states. The European Parliament has become too large and expensive. Most importantly, many people feel that it is unaccountable and that our national sovereignty is being undermined. I would like to see national parliaments playing a bigger role in developing European laws and regulations. We in the United Kingdom must ensure that the laws and regulations work in our interest as much as possible.
One of the main attractions of EU membership is the economic benefit, and we must make sure that we have a firm hand in negotiating all trade deals. The EU single market means that British businesses have access to 500 million customers: it is a goldmine of opportunity. The EU has signed free trade agreements with many countries. This is to be applauded. Were we to leave the EU, we would have to renegotiate our trade relationships with 50 countries on an individual basis. This would involve extensive costs and resources. In addition, membership of the single market makes the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for international investment.
The EU must, however, become more competitive and outward-looking. It is a highly impressive bloc of talent and innovation but it must strive for more. For the benefit of business and the economy more widely it is also important that the EU system works to help promote growth and job creation. Rules must be simplified and red tape must be reduced. Some regulations are better handled at national level and this must be done. The CBI has been consistently clear that for most British businesses the benefits of EU membership outweigh the disadvantages.
We must look very closely at the matter of immigration. We should have control over our borders and pick and choose who is best for our economy and who deserves to be helped. We have a responsibility to accept genuine refugees in need. Last year I visited a refugee camp in Jordan and spoke to a number of people there. These are the people that need and deserve our help. I agree with the Prime Minister’s decision to take refugees from these camps but the numbers should be higher.
I have just returned from visiting Ethiopia. While there I saw some of the remarkable work being undertaken by DfID. It is important that we continue to help other countries to have good governance and to develop economically. People will then prosper in their own communities and be less inclined to come to Europe. With regard to migrants from other EU countries, we must appreciate that their entry does create problems. The knowledge that our borders are open to free movement creates public apprehension and in some cases resentment. The question of immigration from other EU countries needs to be revisited.
We must acknowledge that the Europeans are now our close allies. Indeed, since the establishment of the Common Market there have been no conflicts within the European Union countries. The Common Market was created after the horrors of the Second World War and it generated and maintained people-to-people contacts. In an increasingly globalised and interdependent world we rely heavily on each other. In matters of security and terrorism most of all, we will need to be able to counter the threat of Daesh. Russia also continues to flex its muscles. A united EU response gives us a much greater voice. Similarly, we need a harmonised approach to properly tackle climate change: international threats require an international response. We must, therefore, preserve some of the close working relationships we currently enjoy with our European neighbours. It is important to bear this in mind.
Regardless of one’s opinion on the workings of the European Union, there can be no doubt that it has changed considerably in recent decades. In 1975, 67% of voters chose to continue our membership of the European Economic Community. That was a very different body from the one we now find ourselves part of. Back then, it was purely about economic benefits. There was no projection of ever-closer political union or integration. It therefore follows that the mandate for our membership now needs to be renewed.
One of the biggest criticisms of the whole European project is that it lacks democratic accountability. National parliaments are without a doubt the most democratically accountable and legitimate form of governance for their people. Very few people involve themselves in the affairs of the European Union, so the pros and cons of European membership will need to be explained to them in an easily understood manner. We should take the initiative to trim the bureaucratic, regulative and legislative fat and to make our case to the British people about exactly what the benefits of the European Union can be. Europe needs to serve its member states better and help them to get the most out of the benefits that such a union provides.
I will wait to see what the revised terms are before voting yes or no. I would prefer for us to stay within the union if the revisions were satisfactory.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, those of us who travel to other European countries are normally asked this question, which I was asked last week: what is going on with your country and the EU? We do not understand. So I thought I would save the Hansard for this debate and send it to them, because I am not sure I can answer the question any better now than I could then. People are puzzled and do not understand why we have this odd attitude to the EU. Most of them think we are mad, frankly, and it is very hard to disabuse them of that.
I was thinking, in preparing for this debate, of something that Roy Jenkins said many years ago. In a way I hoped it would be out of date, but it is not. He said that our problem was that we had not really come to terms with the end of empire. He said it a long time ago, but there is still an element of that running through our attitudes to our membership of the EU.
Let me be specific about some points in the Bill. I am delighted that Members of this House are going to have a chance to vote in the referendum. If it is worth voting on our position in the EU in a referendum, it is also worth while having a vote in general elections, but that is for another day.
I used to think that giving 16 and 17 year-olds the vote was not a good idea, but I have come to realise that I was wrong. It is a healthy change, and I very much hope that this House will vote an amendment into the Bill to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. We will then see what the Government do when it gets back to the other end.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said earlier in the debate that, even if Scotland votes to remain in the EU and the rest of the country does not, that would not effect a referendum in Scotland. I really do not think that would be the case, although I bow to his greater knowledge of Scotland. If Scotland votes one way and England and Wales vote the other, the pressures for a further referendum in Scotland will increase and the likely outcome will be less certain than last time.
I turn to one or two specifics on justice and judicial co-operation. If we are not members of the EU, what is going to happen to the European arrest warrant and to our participation in Europol and Eurojust? We might lose those chances, because why should the EU countries go along with us if we say, “We are leaving you, but please can we stay part of this or that”? I think they would probably say, “Go to hell”. Why should they do so? Yet things such as the European arrest warrant are essential for our security. It enables us to get people who are a threat to this country back to Britain to face justice. Although the EAW may have some faults, it is essentially a measure that protects British interests. As crime is increasingly international, we need Europe-wide co-operation; that can be achieved only if we are members of the EU.
I think it was John Hume who said some years ago that the EU was the most successful peace process in world history. That is absolutely right and, before we knock the EU, we should be respectful of what it has done. Our membership of it has contributed to that achievement of peace in Europe. I do not believe that these things are inevitable; the cohesion and sense of solidarity engendered by the EU has very much helped European peace.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about the implications of a British exit on relations between Britain and Ireland, and the specific implications for Northern Ireland. The Irish Government clearly kept out of the referendum debate in Scotland—that was for us and not for them—but this time, I think, they see it a little differently. When Mr Charlie Flanagan, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, spoke recently at Chatham House he referred to the constructive role that Ireland can play in the EU debate in the UK. He said:
“We have resolved, despite being respectful of the democratic process here, to make our voice heard. That means … a role that is supportive of the UK, our most important EU strategic partner, in helping it to achieve reasonable reform objectives. But a role that is equally respectful of our 26 other friends and partners within the European Union”.
He went on to say that,
“it is crucial that every effort is made to engage in debate, to provide information, to clarify, to explain”.
Mr Flanagan then drew attention to the importance that Britain’s EU membership had for Ireland. He indicated that he wanted,
“the UK in the EU because our Union is stronger”,
because of Britain’s participation in it. He said that Ireland benefits from Britain’s membership and that,
“it reinforces … the … bond between our two countries”.
I hope that the millions of people of Irish origin in Britain will take note of what the Irish Government say and vote accordingly in the referendum. Those 3 million or so votes would make quite a difference to the outcome.
I want to say a little about the economic and political aspects of our relationship with Ireland. The UK exports more to Ireland than it does to China, India and Brazil combined—a pretty formidable point. The UK is Ireland’s most important market; the value of Irish exports to the UK is at its highest level ever. In fact, Ireland is the UK’s fifth-largest market, with more than £17 billion in British goods and services exported to Ireland in 2012. About 200,000 people in Ireland are employed as a result of Ireland’s exports to the UK, while UK jobs resulting from exports to Ireland are estimated at more than 200,000. The UK is the third-largest investor in Ireland, after the United States and Germany. These seem to be important facts. The Eurosceptics will say that nothing would change if we left the EU. I think it would, as do the Irish Government, and the close bond we have would be lessened. As far as tourism is concerned, 3 million British people visited Ireland in 2013, while the year before about 2.5 million Irish people visited Britain. That is very important.
However, let me turn to Northern Ireland. The EU had a very positive influence on the peace negotiations there. The EU and the United States together made it possible and created the conditions which enabled us to proceed to the Good Friday agreement. Without the EU’s active involvement and support, things might not have moved forward as they did. We are talking about both the political and economic benefits to Northern Ireland. I think the accepted view is that the EU has been a force for good for everyone in every community, right across Northern Ireland.
If the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would be the EU border. We worked very hard to get rid of that border so that it is effectively not there—you do not see it at all if you drive from North to South—but who is to say what pressures might then be put on that crucial border between Northern Ireland and the Republic? It would be unthinkable if, having worked very hard to get rid of them, there had be some sort of mechanisms on that border. But something would have to be negotiated, as would the wider common travel area. The Government and the people who want us to get out have said nothing about all these things, but they are pretty important.
I have talked briefly about the situation as regards Ireland and Northern Ireland, which are important aspects of the total. I believe that a British exit would be a disaster.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I always enjoy his breadth of interest, although I would probably hesitate to cite the European arrest warrant as the EU’s high-water mark.
I rise to support the measure before us and do so with enthusiasm. I congratulate the Government on its introduction; the time has surely come for this hugely important issue to be resolved. I have read most of the debates in another place. There were impressive interventions and the outcome was unambiguous. Since there is nothing obvious that I want to change about the Bill, my few remarks will be devoted to the nature of the debate that follows the Bill becoming law.
I have never made a secret of my Euroscepticism. However, I still believe that it is just conceivable that enough in the way of reform could be achieved to persuade me to vote in favour of remaining in the EU. To that extent, my mind is not closed. In fact, many of us have more open minds than has been acknowledged in the debate today.
One possible avenue for such reform might originate with our EU partners rather than with ourselves. Might it not be the case that a combination of factors could conspire to persuade our partners that Britain’s aspirations are not, after all, so very far removed from their own? Might it not also be the case that consensus develops among those partners that our leaving might be the last straw for such a troubled and dysfunctional enterprise, whose competence, economic performance and direction of travel have in reality ceased to inspire confidence?
Those of us who lean towards the Brexit outcome need of course to understand the downsides and costs, and not to underestimate them. By that I do not mean absurd and dishonest statements, such as the one that claims that 3 million jobs are dependent on our staying in the EU. That claim rests on the ridiculous assumption that this country, outside the EU, would cease to trade with its former partners. Anyone who persists with such an argument, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was, must surely need also to concede that, by the same measurement, 4.5 million EU jobs are dependent on trade with the UK.
I am after serious and detailed analysis of the implications of staying as well as leaving, as other noble Lords are. When my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up, could she try to tell us a little more about how people will be able to access authoritative and independent research on these issues? Whitehall analysis and comment on its own will not command public trust without what one might term some kind of independent review. I thought that my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is not in his place, put this in context very well. I hope that the Minister will read his remarks with some care.
The debate, I believe—and this has not been touched on—should take account of a problem of the modern age, which is the increasingly corporatist nature of all activity throughout the western world and the resulting political fall-out. The state, perhaps inevitably a little bit corporatist, feels more comfortable dealing with large corporations than with small ones. The corporatist world—industry and commerce—meanwhile has to a great extent ushered in what I might call extreme politics, mentioned here by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. The anger we see on the streets here and elsewhere is less directed at free-market capitalism, which in my lifetime has lifted literally billions of people out of poverty, and more towards corporatism, which has in the last few years cheated and disenfranchised many of the most vulnerable people in the world.
I am not arguing that the leaders of big business are all venal and bad; of course they are not. There are many admirable business leaders, and they are very well represented in your Lordships’ House. However, huge corporate size, wealth and power are almost inevitably corrupting, and in the end self-defeating, because they undermine competition, and those that they are meant to serve become lost to view. As it currently functions, the EU is the personification of corporatism and a denier of freedom and democracy. The link between the rulers and the ruled has faded almost to the point of invisibility,
I have always held that a much neglected problem with Britain’s relationship with the EU stems from the simple incompatibility of our legal systems. I am convinced, for example, that it accounts for much of Whitehall’s infamous gold-plating, which is so dementing for those of us who try to run a small or medium-sized business.
I remind your Lordships that such businesses generate 95% of the British economy and more attention needs to be addressed to their concerns. We have had many lectures today, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about trade. I make the point that many of those lectures come from people who have never traded. I have spent my entire adult life trading with the rest of the world, and I can assure your Lordships, in spite of what the CBI says, that neither I, nor any of my colleagues or people whom I know, have any fear of our future outside the European Union.
Crucially, the debate should—and I fervently hope will, following the passing of this Bill—concern itself with how we are governed and how our people want to be governed. Our system of government can be traced back 2,000 years, when the inhabitants of these damp islands decided to put an end to unaccountable power. The ensuing constitutional journey, which included such milestones as Magna Carta, celebrated this year, has not always been smooth, but the version ultimately bequeathed to us gave us the rule of law, an independent judiciary and democracy. It was exported to the whole of the English-speaking world and seems to me to have stood the test of time quite as well as other systems adopted by countries that, in the main, are very much younger than our own. Europe is a young concept, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London reminded us.
I would not think of offering advice to other countries as to how they should govern themselves; nor, out of good manners, would I claim that our system of government is better than theirs. However, there needs to be a very compelling case indeed to give up our tried and tested form of government in favour of another. But with some 60% of our laws already being decided outside of this Palace of Westminster, and with the persistence of the mantra of “ever closer union”, that is precisely what is being asked of us if we are to remain members. As was eloquently pointed out in another place, “ever closer union” leads to only one destination and that is Union.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister pointed out in his Bloomberg speech:
“It is national parliaments which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU”.
For me, the preservation of our ancient freedoms and our democracy will ultimately be the test that trumps all others.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. I provide consultancy services to a number of companies and organisations in Brussels and across the EU. I discovered that the problem with speaking 50th in a debate such as this very popular debate is that many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made many times over by people who are much more senior and eloquent than I am. The Minister will no doubt be pleased that I will be relatively brief; I pay tribute to her forbearance in sitting on the Front Bench for eight hours listening to the EU being debated, though I notice that she brought along her own cushion to make the experience a little bit more pleasurable.
Many of the contributions that have been made so far have been almost a rehearsal of the arguments of the referendum campaign itself, rather than discussing the merits or otherwise of the Bill. I have listened with great interest to all the arguments about whether we should leave or remain, about whether we are a small island or not, about people’s experience from the war onwards and of their time on the Council of Europe—all of which, of course, have very little to do with what is actually in the Bill. I totally support the Bill: I campaigned in my party for many years for a referendum on Europe and I am delighted that my party sought the permission of people in the general election for that proposal. We gained their consent and we are now putting it forward into legislation, so the Government have my full support on that, not least because I am looking forward to the opportunity of voting in the referendum myself. I suspect that I am in a minority in this House in that I did not get the chance—I was not old enough—to vote in 1975 in the previous referendum. My father, who did, tells me that as a businessman, he voted enthusiastically for a Common Market and is now somewhat perplexed to find himself a member of a European Union—a point that has been made many times by other people as well.
I wish the Government well in their renegotiation attempt. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I have taken part many times in negotiations in the European Union. It is a bit like wading through treacle, but I wish the Prime Minister well in his attempt to renegotiate the relationship. Actually, this referendum is probably the best tool that he has to enable him to get a satisfactory conclusion to those negotiations. To go into the debate and say: “Well, we would like all of these concessions; I know that they’re very difficult for you, but don’t worry, whatever happens at the end we are going to stay in anyway”, is not the best mechanism for persuading our partners to give us significant concessions.
I supported wholeheartedly the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech; I thought it gave an excellent list of problems with the relationship that he was seeking to rectify. I am somewhat concerned about some of the reports of backsliding from that speech since then, but I hope that the reports are incorrect and that the Government are going to surprise us and produce an excellent deal that will enable us all to support the renegotiation. I hope that when negotiations are completed —another point that has been made many times—the Government will feel able to produce a White Paper setting out the full details of what has been achieved and the consequences of voting to remain or voting to leave. That would be a great contribution to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us that assurance this evening.
On the subject of purdah, I welcome the amendments made in the other place and I hope—I know that the Minister has given us some assurances to this end—that the Government will not seek to use regulations to remove the restrictions that were voted on in the other House. It is also important that we ensure impartiality of the broadcasters, and to a lesser extent, of course, of the media as a whole.
I have heard many times references on the BBC to the claim that, if we vote to leave, we will be “leaving Europe”—as if we are going to take our island and tow it off into the mid-Atlantic. Of course we are not going to leave Europe: we will remain part of Europe, and we will still trade and be friends with our partners in Europe. The decision on whether to remain in the EU as a political organisation is entirely separate from whether we should leave Europe. It is impossible for us to leave Europe.
It is also important to ensure that the referendum is fair and equitable, and that spending restrictions apply equally to both sides. I know from my experience the power of the European Commission and its considerable ability to spend money. In addition, the European political parties are extensively funded by taxpayers’ money in Europe, so I hope that the Government will ensure that the spending restrictions are applied equally on all sides of the debate, and that they apply also to the Commission, the Council and the European political parties.
On the subject of the franchise, I am agnostic about the subject of 16 and 17 year-olds voting. I can see arguments on both sides; I suspect that most of them would not bother to vote anyway if they did have the franchise, but I look forward to taking part in the debate and hearing that argument explored further.
With regard to EU citizens, I do not see why they should be permitted to vote. If they are so keen to vote on whether the UK should remain part of the EU, it is open to them to apply for UK citizenship. If Spain, France, Germany or some other EU country had a similar debate, I would not expect British citizens working in that country to be given the right to vote there. I think it is fair that, as the Government have suggested, we restrict the franchise in this election basically to people who can vote in Westminster elections. I look forward to taking part in further debates as time progresses.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, I am the 51st speaker on the list, and I note that no speaker has mentioned the role of UKIP in obtaining this referendum. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who sometimes has his uses, mentioned Nigel Farage in an entirely different context, but the fact is that, however unpalatable it is to all the other parties, it is largely because of UKIP’s pressure—UKIP’s showing in the European elections and the recent national elections—that we have this referendum. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, mentioned that. UKIP has galvanised the country into understanding exactly what we have given away over the years—how much our Parliament and our Governments of all parties and every stripe have given away over a succession of treaties. Parliament has given away powers that were not its to give away. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called it the freehold, and he was quite right. I did not agree with anything else he said in his speech, but the freehold of the British people has been given away by politicians who had no right to do that.
Who needs reminding about the—I do not want to use an unparliamentary expression but I shall borrow a phrase—terminological inexactitudes of Mr Edward Heath, who told us that joining the Common Market would entail no loss of national essential sovereignty? That was back in 1975, which was the last time the people of this country were given any say on our relationship with the EU.
Where are we now, 40 years on, after the give-aways in the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty, the Nice treaty, the Amsterdam treaty and the Lisbon treaty? Forty years on, the EU has a flag, an anthem, a Parliament, a diplomatic service, a border force and its own Court of Justice to which English law is subservient. Who decides our energy policy? Brussels. Who decides our trade policy? Brussels. Who decides our agricultural policy? Brussels. Who decides our fisheries policy? Brussels. Who regulates our financial institutions? Brussels. Who decides what sorts of light bulbs and vacuum cleaners we can use in our own homes? Brussels. Who decides who we allow into our own country? Who decides our immigration policy? Again, it is Brussels. All this has happened in the past 40 years without the people of this country ever being consulted or asked whether they wanted to give away the freehold that was theirs to the unelected, unsackable Commission in Brussels. They were never asked if they wished to transfer those powers to a ramshackle organisation whose accounts have not been passed for the past 19 years.
I am delighted that finally we are going to have this referendum. We have the chance to ask and reply to the fundamental question. It is an easy one: out or not? Do we want to regain the powers to govern ourselves or do we want to continue to contract out the powers to Brussels? That is what the referendum is going to be about. It will be about whether we will be able to decide our own policies in this country, run our own policies and decide our own future. This referendum is going to be about whether in the end we want to decide how to spend the £20 billion a year which our membership of the EU costs us—an annual fee to join that ramshackle club. That is a positive.
The Prime Minister seems to think that if he skilfully asks the right questions and asks little enough of Brussels he will be able to come back and say to the country that he has a wonderful deal so it should back the Government and stay in the EU. As noble Lords have already said, the Sunday Telegraph published his four key demands. One is to ask the Commission to make an explicit statement that Britain will be exempted from the EU founding principle of ever-closer union, but we do not want to be exempted from any further closer union; we want to get back the powers we have already given away. Another demand is an explicit statement that the euro is not the official currency of the EU. That is completely irrelevant. The third demand is a new red card system to bring back powers to Britain by allowing groups of national parliaments the power to stop unwanted legislation proposed by the Commission. The only red card system that is really going to work is if we get out of the EU. That is the best red card system so that we do not have unwanted legislation foisted upon us by an organisation to which we do not belong. The fourth demand is a new structure for the EU itself. This is like a letter to Father Christmas saying, “Dear Santa, what I would like for Christmas is a new structure for the EU”. I suppose that maybe Mr Cameron believes in the Euro-Santa, but I do not think he is going to find that one in his Christmas stocking this year.
I have my own explicit statement for the Government: this sadly unambitious wish list will simply not cut the mustard. There is now an increasing groundswell in the country, largely because of UKIP, that the EU game is not worth the candle and that we would be better off out. This cuts across political parties, businesses which find themselves shackled by EU regulation and individuals who find that their everyday lives are adversely affected by EU rules.
The ice is cracking under the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is quite right that the euro has been an engine for mass unemployment and social unrest. The EU’s immigration policy has been wholly misconceived, both for its member states and for the luckless immigrants who put their trust in the EU and find that they have been misled.
The Britain Stronger in Europe campaign is wheeling out the tired old arguments we have heard so often before. We heard them this afternoon from the Europhiles who told us that we would be marginalised if we did not join the euro and that millions of jobs would be lost. We have heard that before. I have to tell the Europhiles that the fact is—the noble Lord, Lord Davies wants facts and here is one for him—that countries in the eurozone are suffering from crippling 20% unemployment and youth unemployment is 40% in some countries. It is also a fact that this country has created more jobs in the past two years than the whole of the eurozone put together. Those are the facts.
I shall finish by joining the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in saying how odd I find it that the “stay in” campaign chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rose—I find it rather odd that he has not participated in the debate—says that it would be unpatriotic to wish to regain our independence, to make our own laws and to decide our own destiny. That really is very sad indeed.
Let us remember—and I remind the Europhiles—that the United Nations has 193 members and 165 of them seem to get along very well without being members of the European Union. We can do the same. I end by offering noble Lords one thought: if we were not members of the European Union now, would we vote to join?
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. I was particularly pleased when he made it clear to us all that it was UKIP pressure that led to this rather inadequate debate. He went on to say that the same old arguments were being brought out, and I thought that that confession from UKIP was good for the soul.
I thank the Minister for a very clear introduction of the referendum Bill. It was rather technical; nevertheless, it was clear and succinct, and I thank her for it. In reality, of course, nothing in the Bill is to do with the circumstances we are facing. It is a mechanism much more concerned with papering over the cracks in the Conservative Party, some of which we have seen today. I do not say that in a partisan way; I recognise it, as does the noble Lord, Lord Radice, from our past experience of Harold Wilson’s referendum. He was not prepared to say what the demands were, proclaimed a great triumph when we got something and then had a referendum on the basis of it. This is the same pattern, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I remember that referendum well because we had a parliamentary bookmaker at the time, one Ian Mikardo, the late Member of Parliament. I went to Mr Mikardo and asked him what odds he would give me for a yes vote in every constituency of the UK. He had to reflect on it overnight before he offered me 200-1. I put £10 on with Mr Mikardo, and there was a yes vote in every constituency in mainland England, Wales, Northern Ireland and mainland Scotland. However, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was wrong: not just Orkney and Shetland, but also the Western Isles, voted no. They were the only two constituencies in the whole of the UK that voted no, and even then by hair’s-breadth majorities of 50 point something against 49 point something. I lost because of those two constituencies; it was the Lamont curse from the Shetland Islands that got me. I suspect that the result in a referendum today would not be significantly different from that, because it will be fought on the basis of lots of people having their say in the circumstances.
The noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lawson, and a number of other people have criticised the words “ever closer union”. You get the impression that those words were forced upon an unwilling British people some time after we had joined the European Union. That is of course nonsense; they were there in the treaty of Rome. When Geoffrey Rippon negotiated our membership on behalf of a Conservative Government, he was negotiating on the basis of the treaty of Rome, which contained those words that we adhered to. It is not something that was brought out of the cupboard afterwards—“Let’s force those Brits into greater federalism”—it was there at the outset.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
The noble Lord will be aware that there was a difference. The treaty of Rome and so on talked about ever closer union of the peoples of Europe, but the solemn declaration at the Stuttgart European Council changed it—this still holds—to an ever-closer union of the peoples and member states of the European Union.
Lord Tomlinson
I think that is a very sensible change. It is still a change that has been there from the start. The “ever closer union” concept has always been there. What do we want if we do not want ever closer union? Do we want ever greater hostility? Of course not. We want proximity between the peoples of Europe on the things that matter.
I sympathise with a number of noble Lords, such as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who, during the course of the debate, have expressed their scepticism about referenda. I share that scepticism, but what is, is what is; we are lumbered with a referendum and we have to accept that. The Government had a clear majority at a general election, they had a manifesto pledge and they are entitled to hold the referendum.
Still, I strongly support the extensions to the franchise referred to in this debate. It is extremely important that we have a clear discussion, and we will do so in Committee, on two major issues in particular: the voting rights of 16 and 17 year-olds in a referendum, and in particular the voting rights of people who serve this country loyally overseas and have been denied their right here because they have done so for a period longer than 15 years. We are prepared to remedy that and we foresee doing so for the next general election, so we ought to remedy it for the referendum vote, because those serving our country overseas are significantly affected.
Governments, none more significantly than ours, love to rail about Brussels, the Commission, antidemocratic processes and the democratic deficit, but of course, most of the decisions of the European Union are made by the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament has a fair amount of co-decision with the Council. Other than the administration of policy, there are very few things the Commission has as an exclusive right. It has the right to initiate legislation, but that is the proposal. If only the Council of Ministers, individually and collectively, had the competence, confidence and coherence to kick out at an early stage that which they did not like, rather than rail about it after they had it, very often by rather benign neglect.
The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, called for fundamental reform. We have heard many such demands during this debate, but no one tells us what fundamental reform is. The Government’s renegotiation programme is a tightly kept secret. If it is anything like the Sunday Telegraph article, it is hardly a renegotiation but something that we could get just by asking for it, so there is very little in that. If the Prime Minister is going for any sort of reform, he has to bring back to us much clearer reports of what his demands were so that we can judge his competence and success in the negotiations. However, I believe that, whether he comes back with much or with little, when we put the issues to the British public they will follow the consent that comes from most of the affected people—from the political parties, industry, commerce and the trade unions, all of which I believe will argue strongly to keep the United Kingdom as a member of the European Union. A better member we will be if we exercise our membership with enthusiasm, vigour and conviction, and do not just see it as a slight shuffling of economic packs so that we can satisfy the Thatcherite demand, “We want our money back”. Europe has to be more than that. It has to have vision, and the vision I have for Europe is one I hope the Government will begin to think about encapsulating.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I feel a bit like a shaggy old dog stirred from his hearth by a shadow at the kitchen door, the whistle of a familiar refrain and the instruction that it is time to go ratting again. I am in good heart, though, because although it has been a long day, it is not a Friday, we are dealing today with a Bill that has been endorsed by the voters at an election and—dare I say it?—it is a better Bill than the one that I had the honour and pleasure of presenting to your Lordships a year ago. Time and reflection have helped to tweak it, and perhaps it is appropriate for me to apologise to one or two noble Lords who came forward at that time with reasoned and perhaps sensible amendments to that original Bill. We knew that it was never going to work as a Bill, but it was the first light before the dawn.
I am the tail-end Charlie on this and I do not wish to go into too many details of the Bill since that has been done so eloquently by so many people today. However, I will say in passing that I look forward to the efforts the Minister will put into justifying how it is consistent to acquiesce to votes for 16 and 17 year-olds for a referendum on Scotland but not on Europe. I wish her luck—she may need it.
I am a passionate European. I was struck, as I often am, by the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We were schoolkids together—no, not at that school, at a grammar school in Hertford. His words have always been something of an inspiration to me. He asked, “What do we mean by Europe?”. For more than 2,000 years Europe has been the centre of the world. In fact, for almost 2,000 years it was the world: Plato, Homer, Mozart, Picasso—the great artists, the philosophers, the statesmen, the writers, the musicians —Shakespeare, Chopin, Beethoven, the Beatles and all the rest. It has been a pretty formidable and often glorious history. We have been the birthplace of democracy. It is said that the Greeks invented democracy, although it appears that they have been in a measure of chaos ever since. We have been the champions of basic liberties. We introduced the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Okay, I accept there have been a few historical hiccups along the way—things that were less than beneficial—but in Europe we have been, and still are, a beacon of hope for those around the world who are less fortunate than we are.
It is 2,000 years of extraordinary achievement, and yet during those years we have had so many different forms of institutions. You can still hear the footsteps of Socrates and Michelangelo and the Venerable Bede, even though the streets they walked along have long been worn away and the institutions they served have gone. The republics, the monarchies, the empires, the leagues and the confederations are nothing but ancient echoes. The world has moved on. I think it is a great flaw in the wider debate about Europe that we have been having for so many years that it has focused excessively on institutions and not on those deeper issues, because our Europeanness is defined not by our institutions but by our culture.
That is why I was very distressed with the words of the German Finance Minister Herr Schäuble when he was talking about Greece. He said that elections would change nothing and that there was no alternative. I hope that his words lost something in translation because they are pretty cold, hard and unnecessary. The history of Europe tells us that there is always an alternative. In every corner of Europe that you go to nowadays there are voices saying that our institutions are wrong: both sides of this great debate agree on that. We must change, we must go off in one direction or another, but what we cannot do is stand still.
There has never been a better time for a British Prime Minister to argue that there has to be a better way for British leadership in Europe. I wish our Prime Minister well in that undertaking. It is an enormous task. We are playing with history here. This is not a light or an easy decision, but he is absolutely right in that whatever he manages to do, the people must be given the final decision. That is the essence of this Bill here. It is the people, not the institutions, who are the final source of political authority. We have just had this wonderful discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, and my noble friend Lord Lawson about ever-closer union. I have to tell the noble Lord that the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is absolutely right. Right at the top of the treaty of Rome in 1975 the preamble talks first and foremost about ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe. Notice the plural—the peoples of Europe.
There are other words that I think are relevant:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”,
and that,
“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it”.
Those were the wise words of the authors of the Declaration of Independence and I think they are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago. They seemed to make quite a success of it—and entirely without the benefit of a government paper setting out the consequences of their actions.
I am a passionate European in a way that my father and my grandfather could never have been. If I may take the Bard’s words at liberty, there is a lot of good in the state of Denmark—which means that I desperately want the Prime Minister to come back with a deal that I can accept: a clear, strong, substantial deal and not vague promises that might disappear like vapour trails in an evening sun. That would be good not just for Britain but for Europe as a whole—and then let the people decide.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting and constructive debate.
I will just comment on the “ever closer union” issue, having first studied how the European Union treaties were negotiated as a graduate student. Originally in the treaty it was,
“ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”,
because those who had come through the war, often spending the war in London while their states were occupied, wanted to go beyond the nation state. They left the nation states out because Belgium had failed under occupation, as had France, Germany and Italy. The reinsertion of “states” into “ever closer union” was a later recognition that actually you needed to retain the nation state. It was a shift back, away from the original emotional, enthusiastic, idealistic federalism of those who came through the resistance and the war to a recognition that legitimacy depends on states as well and that there are limits as to how far one can go beyond the state. So while we are looking at the history of the evolution of all of this, that is part of this very wonderful phrase “ever closer union”, which means so many different things to so many different people. That is why it is an ideal phrase; we can interpret it in so many different ways and perhaps we should not get quite so hung up on it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It is a very interesting theory about this development of the “ever closer union”. Why did the original draft of the Maastricht treaty, before it was amended at the request of John Major, talk about “towards a federal union”?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
It is not a theory; I am actually giving the noble Lord some history. I have great admiration for him and his wonderful interventions —he is the best Commons debater in the Lords, I have to say. There were those of the original generation who really did want to build a United States of Europe and they followed the American lead in this. After the war, the Americans had wanted to press on Europe the idea that the Europeans should follow the American lead and build our own United States on their model, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, has hinted. All of us resisted American pressure because we did not want to go anywhere near that degree of integration.
Lord Dobbs
Forgive me for interrupting, but I would also remind the noble Lord that the United States, in order to achieve a single currency, actually required a civil war to do it, which is scarcely a model that one wishes to follow.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I should remind the noble Lord that, when I have given talks in Washington and elsewhere on European integration, I have often said—sometimes years ago—that, if we ever achieved a United States of Europe, I had no doubt that the policy process would work almost as well as the policy process in Washington. I hope that the noble Lord understands the point.
We have teased out of this debate what issues we have to deal with in Committee and on Report. We are now agreed that there is to be a referendum; the question is now settled; and the date is beyond Parliament’s control, except when the negotiations have been agreed and the Government come back to us. Therefore, we are left with a number of manageable issues.
On the question of purdah, clearly, if we have a long campaign, the Government have to go on negotiating with their partners in the European Union, and Ministers will have to say some things. In that area we will need to explore what the correct outcome is.
On the franchise, on which a great deal has been said, it is quite clear that the current British franchise is a mess. It is a historical, imperial legacy which means that someone who was born in Rwanda or Mozambique and moved to London last year can vote on whether we stay in the European Union. When we are in London, we stay in Wandsworth, where you hear French spoken extensively in the streets, which has been the case for 20 to 30 years. However, French people who have been working and living in London for 20 or 30 years, paying taxes here, contributing in every sense to our economy, cannot vote. There are a whole set of issues there which we need to explore in detail. This is not an ordinary vote. As has been said during this debate and elsewhere, this is a vote about the future of this country, and therefore we need to look at the franchise for this exceptional vote in exceptional ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, and other noble Lords raised the question of threshold, which clearly we will have to explore a little, although it is a very difficult issue. Whatever happens at the end of it, if we have a narrow majority, either with a low or a high turnout, it will not settle the issue. However, we all know that referendums do not settle the issue. Six months after the 1975 referendum, the Labour Party was still arguing against staying in the European Union, and look at what happened in Scotland, where the referendum did not settle the future of that country.
The issue of the provision of information is extremely important and very difficult, and again we need to spend some time on it. We have to ask for a White Paper; certainly we need to look at the implications of leaving and, if possible, the prospect of staying. However, I bear hard scars from the problems of having to try to create dispassionate evidence on Britain’s relations with Europe. I spent two years in government negotiating 32 reports on the balance of competences between Britain and the European Union. Some 2,500 pieces of evidence came in; the Conservatives put that in the coalition agreement because they were convinced that this would provide the evidential basis for knowing what sort of powers we would want to repatriate from Brussels back to Britain. The overwhelming evidence submitted to the balance of competences review—from business, universities, financial and legal services—was that they think the current balance of competences is pretty good, thank you. The evidence submitted by easyJet began: easyJet would not exist if it were not for the single market in the European Union.
How did the press and No. 10 react to this? They did their best to bury the balance of competences reports in full. They were usually published at the beginning of the Christmas or the July Recess, just to make sure that the press were looking somewhere else instead. That is part of the problem in trying to get dispassionate evidence into our debate: myths float by us, undisturbed by reality.
I saw in a Church of England blog, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to yesterday, that a lay member of the synod of Canterbury said that one of the reasons why the BBC is so biased in favour of Europe is because it receives so much significant funding from the European Union. I look at that with amazement. That is clearly going round in some circles as part of this wonderful phantasmagoria of the EU as a monster, reaching across the Channel to seduce honest Englishmen, strangle our free institutions and reduce us to serfdom under German—and perhaps also French—domination. Therefore, we will struggle between evidence and myth as we go on through this debate.
I will remark on one of the myths, which I have heard several times in this debate: “We thought we were joining a Common Market, and no one ever told us that this was a political project”. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself, in his speech to the Conservative Party conference last week, said:
“When we joined the European Union we were told that it was about going into a common market, rather than the goal that some had for ‘ever closer union’”.
Last night, therefore, again I dug out Sir Alec Douglas -Home’s speech on 21 October 1971, on the first day of the Commons debate on the issue of principle of joining the European Economic Community. He said that,
“when Germany, France, Italy and the rest sit down to talk about their problems of security, and their attitude to world problems … it is vital that we should be in their councils. During the last year I have … been in the councils of the Ten, because they have anticipated the larger Community. Matters are talked about there which concern the defence of Europe and the defence of Britain. Matters are talked about—for example, the Middle East—which have the greatest implications for our country. It is essential that we should be in the councils when these questions are discussed, and that a decision should not be taken without us”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/10/71; col. 922.]
I say that for all those who think that we would be better off as a sort of Switzerland with nuclear weapons, which I think is what—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord intervenes on NATO. If you go to Washington now, you will discover that they think that NATO is a European organisation, and they argue very strongly that NATO and the European Union should work more closely together, because they see them as parts of the same outfit. There is not a sharp difference between the EU and NATO, and the overwhelming majority of members of NATO are also members of the EU. It is not a contradiction. The two go together; they complement each other.
The argument has also been made throughout this debate that the EU has changed beyond all recognition since 1975. That is partly because of British initiatives and efforts: Margaret Thatcher’s initiative on the single market; national deregulation and European reregulation, which of course meant different regulations as we negotiated some of them, but not an overall increase in regulation; and eastern enlargement, which Margaret Thatcher pushed for, with the unintended effect that of course when Poland came in, as she wanted it to, a large number of Poles decided that they wanted to move here, which was one of the interesting unintended consequences.
The world has also changed enormously since 1975. We are in a different global economy; the national companies that used to exist have become multinational; we have integrated production models in which every Airbus sold by the French has over 30% of British parts in it, and every car built in Britain and Germany has parts from other countries throughout Europe; and similarly, we have cross-border financial services, legal services and the like.
Britain has also changed. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, powerfully, “We want our independence back”. I would like to have back our regional economies. I spent much of my life in the north of England; in Yorkshire you used to have textile mills and building societies. He is from the north-east; we had ICI and Northern Rock. He will remember Northern Rock—it was quite a good building society in his time and did quite a lot for the regional economy. However, these things have all changed. Now Nissan keeps the north-eastern economy going, and I much regret that we no longer have regional banks. The bank that my father used to work for, Barclays, which used to do a lot of useful regional investment, has just chosen an American investment banker as its chief executive. That is rather different from the sort of national economy in which I grew up.
Therefore, we all have to adjust to a global world in which independence and sovereignty have gone. After all, sovereignty goes most easily with protection. Free trade requires international co-operation. Globalisation means global regulation, or regulation by the world’s leading economy, which so far, of course, has been the United States. If we wish to co-operate with others in managing a global economy, we should surely start by co-operating most closely with our neighbours, and if we cannot do that, we should not hold to the illusion that we would find the Chinese, the Russians, the Saudis and the Indians easier partners than the French or the Germans.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by associating myself and these Benches with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to Lord Howe and Lord Healey. I feel that their contributions have been sorely missed today. They would have made this debate very interesting and their experience will be sorely missed in this House. Of course, our condolences go to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, too.
We support the Bill and its passage through Parliament. We also support Britain remaining a member of the EU. We agree that the European Union needs to change. Like many in this debate we want reform in Europe on benefits, transitional controls, the way the EU works and how it relates to national parliaments. We also want the completion of the single market in services to boost jobs and economic growth here in the United Kingdom. We need to co-operate to achieve these things but the EU needs to recognise that there is a growing demand across societies in Europe for greater devolution of power at the same time. We need to co-operate and devolve, and the EU’s task in the years ahead is to reconcile these two forces.
While the Prime Minister has set out a strategy for the renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union, he has not set out in full what he is asking for. We have heard the Minister say before that it would be unwise for the Government to show their full negotiating hand. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, I hope tonight she will be prepared to throw a little more light on the subject. The problem for the Prime Minister is that there is nothing he can negotiate that will satisfy a significant proportion of his parliamentary party. The danger is that our position in Europe will be dictated by the politics of the Conservative Party rather than the national interest. Whatever the divisions within the Conservative Party, the Government have a collective responsibility to ensure that the British people know what the consequences will be if they vote to leave the EU—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and your Lordships’ committee. We shall therefore be making the case strongly in Committee that the Bill should include the requirement for the Government to set out to Parliament the consequences of leaving the European Union and what that means compared with our remaining a member. Those who want to take us out of the EU in the name of sovereignty will have to explain why leaving collective institutions where many of the rules of our economy are decided, and where we are currently represented, would enhance our power and influence. They will have to show why the major markets in the world outside the European Union would view us as a more attractive proposition if we left.
As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, lots of people have changed their minds on Europe. In the 1975 referendum I was secretary of my local Get Britain Out campaign. It was not a successful campaign but it is clear from today’s debate that many of the changes in Europe which persuaded me of the benefits of membership, such as the development and protection of workers’ rights, have had the opposite effect on many noble Lords. We have been travelling, in a way, crossing paths. To me, the development of the European Economic Community without the social dimension was very one-sided, but the development of that social dimension has changed the nature of the European Union for me and for my party for the good. As my noble friend Lord Radice highlighted, it is interesting that 40 years on it is the Conservative Party that has agreed to a referendum to try to deal with internal divisions. However, as he and my noble friend Lord Liddle said, reform is not just about what Britain asks for now; it is about the building of alliances—an approach that can bring considerable change over time. As my noble friend Lady Royall said, the proportion of the EU budget spent on the common agricultural policy demonstrates that change is possible by building alliances and arguing the case, not walking away. The EU will need to continue to reform in the years ahead not least, as we have heard in this debate, because the world is changing dramatically and the institutions of the European Union will need to do likewise.
On the franchise, I hear what the Government are saying: that it is right to use the same basic approach as 40 years ago in the last European referendum and as five months ago in the general election—in other words, to stick to the parliamentary voting register. On EU citizens, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Balfe—I do not see him in his place—who mentioned that he would be quite happy to give assistance to citizens of other European Union states to become citizens of the UK. My husband, who has been my partner for 20 years and has been living in this country, is a Spanish citizen. I think that he would be quite keen to take up that offer of assistance, but I also assume that the noble Lord would be prepared to pay the £1,000 fee, which of course is what most European citizens would have to do if they were to take up dual citizenship.
As we have heard in this debate, referendums are rare; they are not part of the usual business of politics in this country. They have been used in matters of constitutional importance and, as in the case of Scotland, they have been described as once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. I do not think that our young generation should miss the opportunity to shape their future and it is really important that we address this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned the contribution in the other place from the Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston. I should like to quote her. She said that,
“since nearly one in four 16-year-olds can expect to live to 100 years of age and will be living with the consequences of this decision for far longer than Members of this or the other House, and given that they have the mental capacity to weigh up these decisions and the enthusiasm to take part, we should extend the franchise”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 1062].
I could not agree more.
Contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, failure to extend the franchise is completely at odds with the other rights that we already give to 16 and 17 year-olds, as we have heard in this debate, including the right to work, pay tax, join the Armed Forces, be company directors and consent to medical treatment. It is a long, long list. It is odd that the Government’s position in the Wales Act 2014 is to devolve to the Welsh Government the power to decide whether 16 and 17 year-olds can be given the vote. The Government are giving that power to Wales and it has been exercised in Scotland, yet they are blocking it in this instance. Why should English and Welsh 16 and 17 year-olds and Scottish 16 and 17 year-olds be treated differently in this referendum? What better way to get more young people involved in our democratic life than to give 16 and 17 year-olds the opportunity to take part in this momentous decision, which will affect their lives and their futures just as much as it will affect ours?
The Minister will no doubt say that we should not use this referendum to change electoral law, although of course we are doing that with a few exceptions, such as the small but overwhelmingly older generations in this House and the citizens of Gibraltar. My case is that this referendum is exceptional and we need to make an exception now for young people to vote on their future. As my noble friend Lord Anderson said, the world is constantly changing. The challenges that we face as a nation of creating jobs for future generations, of growing the economy so that we can continue to support the NHS and an ageing population, and of combating climate change, terrorism and insecurity cannot be solved on our own. Our future lies in co-operation in the European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, today’s debate has been vigorous and passionate, and rightly so. I believe that it presages the same kind of energy that we will see across the House when we reach Committee, and I look forward to engaging with noble Lords on those matters. Of course, I will continue to hold all-party meetings with noble Lords and will make sure that there is one such meeting before Committee. We have also produced some factsheets to assist noble Lords with some of the technical detail, and those will continue to be available.
Noble Lords have ranged very widely in their speeches today, and there is nothing wrong with that. We have heard many thoughtful, considered arguments across the whole panoply of issues and I have valued the opportunity to listen to those today. However, I trust that the House will understand that in my response I will focus mostly on the Bill itself, looking at its provisions and the principle of holding a referendum. Even though this Second Reading debate started at 11 o’clock this morning, I can see that Members of the House are as vigorous on this matter now as they were then. It is a model of the House of Lords for others to watch and, I hope, admire.
I have been asked many questions about the negotiations and perhaps I may deal with that matter first. The Prime Minister made it clear that there are four areas where he wants change: sovereignty, economic governance, competitiveness and immigration. For example, ever closer union—on which we had a very interesting exchange on the Floor of the House earlier this evening—may be right for others but we believe that it is not right for Britain. We wish to protect Britain’s interests outside the euro. We want to increase economic competitiveness to create jobs and growth for hard-working families, and we want to reform welfare to reduce the incentives that have led to the mass immigration from Europe.
Policy talks have been taking place between the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe with a range of our colleagues across the rest of the European Union. Technical talks on the four areas for reform set out by the Prime Minister began in June following the June European Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, very properly asked the testing question—as he put it—of what the Prime Minister would do if he believes that the negotiation has not delivered the result he wants. In that case, would the Prime Minister recommend that Britain consider voting to leave the European Union? The Prime Minister has made it clear that, in those circumstances, he would rule nothing out. But he has also made it clear that he is confident that he will carry through a strong negotiation and achieve the right result for the UK and the rest of the European Union.
If I may, I will turn to the Bill itself. Noble Lords raised interesting points on the franchise for the poll, how we can ensure that the public can make an informed choice and, of course, the issues arising from Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. I will try to address some of those issues now. With the leave of the House, I will give an indicator of the Peers who spoke on a given issue without referring to each individual, given that over 50 people have spoken. Sometimes, where only one person raised an issue, I shall do so.
First, I am glad to see such clear support in this House for the Bill making its passage through Parliament and becoming law. I know that there is, shall we say, a difference of view about how welcome referendums are in principle and, perhaps, in practice. However, overwhelmingly, there was support for the principle of giving the British people the opportunity to have their say. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs said, let them have their voice and make the choice. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Bowness thought the referendum unwelcome, but he recognised that the Bill should pass.
I am grateful to noble Lords for making it clear that the matter of the referendum question itself is settled and gives the British people the opportunity to make a clear choice: remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union. It is crucial to our ability to move forward as a nation that the referendum is fair and is seen to be fair. That is what this Bill sets out to deliver. Noble Lords made several suggestions about bringing forward amendments to, as they see it, improve that fairness.
The franchise has been raised, quite reasonably, as an issue of importance for the referendum. There have been multiple suggestions about who should be added. Noble Lords who referred to the franchise in various guises include the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall, Lady Morgan of Ely, Lady Smith of Newnham, Lady Crawley, and Lady Suttie; the noble Lords, Lord Tyler, Lord Jay, Lord Teverson, Lord Harrison, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Shipley, Lord Elis-Thomas, Lord Hannay, Lord Rooker, Lord Maclennan, and Lord Tomlinson; and my noble friends Lord Tugendhat and Lord Dobbs. I suspect that there are others who I have managed to miss, and I apologise to them.
The link between franchise and favouring one result over another has also been mentioned. It is important that we have a franchise that is seen to be fair. Given the national importance of this decision, we believe that the appropriate starting point is the Westminster franchise. To that, as noble Lords have commented, we have added Members of this House, who are already represented in Parliament, and Commonwealth and Irish citizens in Gibraltar. We believe that, in following the Westminster franchise, we are following precedent. The 1975 poll on EEC membership and the 2011 poll on the alternative vote system used the same franchise, with the exception of Gibraltar. The European Union Act 2011 used the same franchise, except, of course, that this Bill adds Irish citizens in Gibraltar for consistency with the position in the UK.
Noble Lords pointed to the inconsistency between the voting ages for different elections. We have responded to requests to increase the powers of the devolved Administrations. As a result, the power to determine the voting age for Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, 16 and 17-year olds in Scotland will be able to vote in these elections in 2016. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said that he believes that the Cabinet had been persuaded that it was a good idea that 16 and 17-year olds should vote in Scotland. The decision was taken by the Cabinet to devolve the decision to Scotland on the basis that it was right for them to make the decision. It was made clear at the time that that was the case.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I shall, although I suspect that I shall then be cutting out a reference to other noble Lords. I am accurate in what I have said.
Lord Tyler
I will be as brief as I can. Is the Minister therefore saying that the Cabinet was not fully aware of the consequences of giving that decision to the Scottish Administration?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I did not say that in the slightest. I was correcting the impression that the Cabinet had made the decision to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. I would not wish the accurate facts to be misunderstood: the Cabinet took the decision that the decision should be devolved to Scotland. I think it is right that Scotland made the decision because it was a referendum about the position of Scotland.
The Wales Bill will give to the Welsh Assembly the power to determine the voting age for Welsh Assembly and local elections in Wales. This change will not be made in time for the 2016 elections.
It is a fact that devolution gives rise to inconsistencies. I appreciate that there will be very lively debate on these matters when we get to Committee. Noble Lords have said, in support of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, that we should value their views. We do. Others have said that young people are engaged and politically active, and that they are able to take these decisions. Indeed, this may well be true, but it is also true of many 15 year-olds, and we have not had a thorough debate on where the franchise should extend. One or two noble Lords referred to the fact that political engagement is not necessarily true of all 50 year-olds, but that is another matter. Political engagement, surely, or lack of it, should not be enough justification for giving or denying a vote to someone.
As I set out this morning, we believe that changing the entitlement to vote should be achieved through specific legislation. It should be considered properly; there should be full consultation; it should be considered through both Houses of Parliament in the normal manner; and it should command a consensus. Although I hear very strongly the views of the House today about 16 and 17 year-olds, I say to noble Lords that there is not consensus on this matter at the moment. I shall look forward to hearing further arguments in favour of changes to the franchise when we reach Committee. Apparently, Parliament has not had the time to scrutinise properly the implications of such a change.
The question of EU citizens voting has also been raised and debated. There is nothing in the EU treaties that says that EU citizens should be allowed to vote in referendums or parliamentary elections in other EU member states. This is for member states themselves—meaning this Parliament—to determine. It is the norm across the EU that EU citizens are not able to vote in national polls in other member states. I am not aware of any other member state that would extend such a vote to citizens of other EU states.
British citizens were not enfranchised, for example, in the Dutch or French referendums of 2005. Many EU nationals who have lived here for many years are a valued part of our society, and many of them choose to take UK citizenship. Whatever the cost, they choose to do so. They will, therefore, have the right to vote.
There are also questions about why certain people living overseas cannot vote.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Will the noble Baroness recognise the point made by an earlier speaker that none of the precedents she talks about in the European Union relates to a country voting on whether to leave the European Union? The argument for giving EU citizens here the vote is that their rights are going to be fundamentally affected. They were not fundamentally affected in the same way by these other referendums. I think, therefore, that it would be good if she could recognise that there is a total difference in nature between this referendum and the others that have taken place in the European Union.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I always respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Indeed, this is the first time that a country is facing the opportunity to vote to leave the European Union, but it is my understanding, from colleagues across Europe, that they certainly viewed the referendums held there as being of great seriousness for the future of their countries.
I have been asked specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked how many British citizens live abroad. There are a number of different estimates, but in 2013 the United Nations estimated that there were 5.2 million British-born migrants abroad, of whom 1.3 million were in other EU member states. There are, however, no figures distinguishing how many have been away for longer than 15 years. I know from visiting our embassies overseas that when British citizens travel or settle, they do not usually let the embassy know—so we do not have the opportunity to gather that information.
Noble Lords asked about removing the 15-year rule for overseas voters. We are committed to doing so; it was in our manifesto; and we are keeping the promises in our manifesto. A Bill will be brought forward, but it will be a Bill to consider the matter of franchise and not something to be rushed through in time for any particular piece of legislation in this Session.
I was also asked about an anomaly by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who commented that Peers overseas can vote if they have been there for more than 15 years and others cannot. What I can say to her is that Peers are in the same position as anybody else. If they are resident overseas and have been for more than 15 years, they are subject to the same 15-year rule, just like any other British citizens resident overseas.
There was very strong debate on public information, with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Jay, Lord Tugendhat, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Cavendish of Furness, and many others very properly saying that it was important that the public should be able to make their decision based on reliable information. It is difficult to know how individuals determine what they believe to be reliable information, but that is something we will have to consider. I listened very carefully indeed to every noble Lord who made points about the publication of material, whether it was by government, whether it was government to commission work from the OBR, whether it was government to provide some statistics that would be in some way scientific and independent, or whether it was a White Paper. I would like to consider further exactly what that material might look like and what kind of information could be produced that is proper and helpful, and noble Lords have a strong role to play in those discussions.
Clearly, there is a role for the Government in all that. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, proposed that there should be a White Paper on the matter of leaving the European Union. Whatever information is produced by the Government should also say very strongly what the implications are of staying in the European Union, because it is a matter of inviting people to make a decision between remaining and leaving. Therefore, the Government’s duty is to look at both those matters.
The Bill is all about putting the question to the British people. It does not make provision about what happens next. I was asked whether the result would be legally binding. Clearly, at the moment, it is not sensible for us to guess about the best way to implement the result, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, this would be the first time that a member state had had the opportunity to vote to leave. If we got to the position where the country decided that it wished to leave, we would then get into the newer territory of working through those procedures.
Perhaps I may deal first with whether the result would be legally binding. I was asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London whether the Government would respect the result of the referendum. The Prime Minister has made it clear that we will respect the result of the referendum even though it is not legally binding. In March 2010, the Constitution Committee of this House considered referendums in the UK and concluded that, because of the sovereignty of Parliament, they could not be truly legally binding—my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth was on the Constitution Committee, so I know that he will appreciate the details of that.
With regard to the process of leaving, I was asked about the Article 50 process by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, I believe. She nods her assent. The Prime Minister, of course, is focused on success, as I mentioned earlier, so we are not going to speculate on might what might happen if there is a vote to leave the European Union. In general terms, and I have certainly had advice on this before from my noble friend Lord Bowness, Article 50 provides a mechanism for states to withdraw from the EU. Once a member state has notified the European Council of its intention to withdraw, it would have to negotiate its future relationship with the EU. This is agreed by a qualified majority of the member states, with the consent of the European Parliament. Article 50 gives a limit of two years for these negotiations, which can be extended with unanimous agreement before the treaties cease to apply.
While I am dealing with individual questions, I will refer to one from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who asked about the implications of the lobbying Act. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act does not prevent companies setting out their views on EU membership. That Act amended the rules for third parties campaigning in elections; it did not amend the rules for campaigning in referendums. The Bill applies Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which sets out the rules for campaigning at referendums. These rules do not prevent companies making their views known to workforces and customers.
On campaigning itself, the campaign rules were considered in another place. It has been such a long time since PPERA was passed in 2000 that the House of Commons agreed to uprate the spending figures in line with inflation. Fact sheets are available with information on that. Noble Lords rightly concentrated their fire on the whole issue of Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. This concerns restrictions placed on publicly funded bodies and individuals on publishing certain material in relation to the referendum in the final 28 days of the campaign. The restrictions of this section will apply in full following an amendment made on Report in the other place. The power to which noble Lords referred to set out in regulations any exemptions to those rules was also added to the Bill at the same stage. Clause 6, which stands in the Bill before us, was passed without vote in the other place. There was no dissent. It is only proper that any regulations made using this clause will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses.
To my noble friend Lord Lamont and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I can say that Section 125 places a restriction on publishing material that deals with,
“any of the issues raised by”,
the referendum question. Publication means to make something available to,
“any section of the public, in whatever form”.
We are now taking stock, as I mentioned earlier, reviewing the implications of living with Section 125 in full and determining whether that is possible or whether we will need to use the power to make regulations.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I was about to come to my noble friend’s questions.
I now come to the questions posed by my noble friends Lord Forsyth and Lord Ridley. I was asked about the Government’s commitment to four months’ notice of a campaign that would last for 10 weeks. It was suggested that this should be in the Bill. The four months’ notice applies only when regulations are made under Clause 6. There must then be at least four months between the making of these regulations and the referendum date. We believe it would be wrong to set the referendum period now, while the date of the referendum is itself undecided. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill provides a power for Ministers to set the referendum period in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the Government have indicated that we do not intend to set a referendum period any shorter than the 10 weeks provided for in the PPERA.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth said that he believed Section 125 does not apply to Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Government. Section 125 applies to,
“any other person or body whose expenses are defrayed wholly or mainly out of public funds or by any local authority”.
So, yes, it does indeed apply to the Scottish Government. The activities of the Scottish Government are funded entirely from the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that helpful piece of information. Can she just tell me how long it will take her to take stock? I am trying to be helpful but there is a degree of suspicion that perhaps the Government might be tempted to water down the position on purdah. I really do not understand why the Government cannot take stock and produce regulations while we are considering the Bill, so that the House has an opportunity to discuss it. What exactly is the problem? Is it the shortage of manpower in the Foreign Office? What is the difficulty that prevents the Government saying what these regulations should be?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, if it were an easy matter we would have resolved it by now. It is a matter whereby, to ensure that we properly bring forward regulations—if we do at all—before this House, we take full legal advice and take into account all the ramifications of government business. On the position of Members of another place and ourselves, if we are speaking outside parliamentary privilege and all related matters, this is not a matter to be resolved in a way that this House would find unsatisfactory. We are taking care. The debate today and further debates will feed into those decisions. That is the important matter. Noble Lords have that voice, and I know I will listen to it.
My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to John Penrose giving a commitment to a 16-week referendum period which should be on the face of the Bill. All I would say is that my honourable friend John Penrose made it clear that we do not intend to set a referendum period any shorter than the 10 weeks provided for by PPERA and the 16-week—or four-month—period is already in the Bill. If my noble friend has a moment later to look at Clause 6(6), he will see that the provision is there. I have been rescued—I have been giving away too many copies of my Bill; clearly it is too popular a document. Subsection (6) states:
“Any regulations under subsection (2) must be made not less than four months before the date of the referendum”.
I am very grateful for the care, attention and energy displayed by noble Lords today. It is a privilege to stand here and bring forward this Bill for your Lordships’ attention. What we are doing is so important, as many noble Lords have said. It is a chance in a lifetime to give the British people their say on whether the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union or leaves it. I look forward to the vigorous debates to come. I believe that today we have set this Bill on the road to giving the British people the chance to make their decision. I commend the Bill to the House.