House of Commons
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
1. What progress is being made on completing the electoral register.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
10. What progress is being made on completing the electoral register.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
Since June 2014, more than 11 million people have applied to register to vote, three quarters of whom used the ultra-convenient online system, which takes less time than boiling an egg. At the general election, there were 400,000 more entries on the register than before, and thanks to individual electoral registration, 96 out of every 100 have been confirmed as genuine. We are now focusing on the remaining four in every 100 and, by December, electoral registration officers will have attempted to contact each of them nine times over 18 months. Any who are genuine voters will be confirmed on the register, and the remaining inaccurate entries—people who have moved away, died or registered fraudulently—will be removed.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to tackle electoral fraud to prevent further events such as those in Tower Hamlets, and that individual voter registration will play an integral part in that?
John Penrose
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The underlying point behind individual electoral registration is that it requires genuine proof of identity, which the old system did not. The need to provide information such as date of birth and national insurance number ensures that the opportunity for fraudulent registration is greatly reduced.
Christopher Pincher
I am reassured to hear that 96 out of every 100 voters have been proved to be genuine since the roll-out of individual electoral registration, but will the Minister tell me what further action is being taken to target the four in every 100 who appear not to be genuine?
John Penrose
This is an important issue. We have made up to £3 million available to local authorities to pursue the remaining four in every 100. By the end of this year, all those people will have been contacted up to nine times, either by phone, email or letter, or by someone knocking on their door, in order to confirm that they are genuine voters with a pulse, in which case they will have been confirmed on the register. We want to ensure that we do not inadvertently disfranchise them. Anyone who is left over will almost certainly be a ghost voter—a ghost in the machine; a data error—and can therefore be safely removed.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
13. Would the Minister acknowledge that a disproportionately high number of those falling off the electoral roll are young people such as the students attending the Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College and the University of West London in my constituency? Can he not see that this is the biggest electoral disfranchisement in our history?
John Penrose
No, I would not acknowledge that, because if they are genuine people on the register, we will find them and confirm them as genuine. No genuine voters will be disfranchised by this move. The hon. Lady is absolutely right, however, to say that there are significant groups of under-represented people who are not on the register at all and therefore cannot be disfranchised by being removed from it. This is a fundamental issue for the health of our democracy, and we must go out and find those people. We need to have proper registration drives to get them on to the register in the first place.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Will the Minister tell us whether there is a requirement for people to produce photographic ID as well as a utility bill when they register to vote?
John Penrose
At the moment, the proof of ID when registering includes information such as a date of birth and a national insurance number. Photographic ID is not required, although I believe that the situation in Northern Ireland might be slightly stricter and that there are tighter rules there, given the history of the Province. Of course, individual electoral registration was introduced in Northern Ireland many years ago and it has been extremely successful. There was no transitional period at all there; it all happened in one day and the system moved across to IER very swiftly.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The Electoral Commission’s advice is clear: do not bring forward the full transition to individual electoral registration. What is the point of Parliament setting up this body if Ministers are simply going to ignore its advice?
John Penrose
May I put right an inadvertent omission from a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday? I omitted to welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and I would like to do that now. She is absolutely right to say that the Electoral Commission made that recommendation. However, it is not impossible to disagree with its reasoning. Indeed, others including the Association of Electoral Administrators—the people who actually run the elections in our democracy—believe that this is the right thing to do.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
2. What steps his Department has taken to improve transparency in government.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
Over the past five years, we have opened up 20,000 Government data sets to the public and made expenditure data covering more than £188 billion of Government spending available for scrutiny. Through our leading role in the international Open Government Partnership, we will continue to be one of the most open and transparent Governments in the world.
Paula Sherriff
The Minister has admitted to me in a written answer that his so-called freedom of information commission is not itself subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Now he has reported that it will not commit to publishing evidence or minutes and that it may meet in private, ban journalists from naming its press spokesperson and even refuse to consider enforcing the Act on privatised services. Is it not time to end this farce and start again?
Matthew Hancock
No, the commission that is looking into how the Act has operated over the past 10 years is, rightly, independent, so it deals with the question of how it operates. Private organisations have not been subject to the Act, because it is about government information, so it is entirely appropriate for them to make the decisions.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
How will transparency in government be improved by the alteration of the code of conduct for special advisers, which now says that they shall be entitled to give instructions to communications staff in Departments?
Matthew Hancock
The transparency of Government information is absolutely aided by a combination of our open data and the use of press officers and communication teams to explain to the public what is going on. Making sure that that happens in an orderly and organised way, subject to Ministers’ wishes, is a very important part of it running effectively.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I make a genuine offer to the Minister: we would like to build on the progress of the past decade in opening up government to more scrutiny. But we are very concerned that the commission on freedom of information may roll back the FOI Act. It is not subject to the FOI Act and it has recently held a secret briefing to invited-only journalists, off the record. It is not very transparent, is it? Is there a reason for that?
Matthew Hancock
First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his resounding victory in the deputy leadership election? On this question, I also welcome his tone. I am a great supporter of the Act, but 10 years after its introduction it is reasonable to see how it is operating and to make sure, as the Justice Committee said in the last Parliament, that there is a “safe space” for policymaking, so that people can be confident about giving frank advice to powerful people safe in the knowledge that that will remain private. It is about how this operates; it is not about the principle of having freedom of information in the first place.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
How can we have transparency in government when I, as an MP, cannot get a straight answer to a simple question? Let me give an example of that. I submitted a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking how many meetings he had had with the Treasury on a specific subject. The answer I got was that there had been many meetings; I did not get a number. I therefore asked a supplementary question requesting the dates of the meetings, because I thought that would flesh it out, but the answer I got back was, “I have had many meetings”. That seems to be the opposite of transparency, and we need to start here with ministerial answers to MPs.
Matthew Hancock
I am afraid I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, because I do not know when those meetings were or how many there were—but I do know that by the sounds of it there were many meetings.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
3. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on releasing all Government papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24 campaign.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Oliver Letwin)
I have not had any discussions with the Justice Secretary, but, as I promised the House I would some months ago, I have now completed the review of the material held by the Cabinet Office, which has not yet been released.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for that answer. It is 40 years since my constituents first faced the issues at Shrewsbury, 18 months since this House voted to release the papers and currently seven and a half years before they will be released. Could the Minister, having conducted that review, now come to this House to make a full statement releasing those papers?
Mr Letwin
No. I have no intention of authorising the release of those papers, which relate to the security services. When the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice he brought that matter to the then Justice Secretary and the papers were not released. Since then, we have made the decision to hold those materials. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman— this is the material point—that the Cabinet Secretary and I both reviewed them and both came to the firm conclusion that they do not relate in any way to the question of the safety of the conviction of the Shrewsbury 24 and, crucially, all of those papers have been released to and been reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so that it can make that independent, impartial judgment on this very important question of justice.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
4. What his plans are for the future of the Government Digital Service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
The world leading Government Digital Service will continue its vital work to make public services simpler, clearer and faster for users.
Chi Onwurah
The GDS are the crown jewels of digital transformation globally, but now we have headline resignations, with a fifth of all staff leaving. Is it not true that Ministers are cutting back on their ambition to impress the Chancellor ahead of the cuts in the spending review?
Matthew Hancock
No, we increased the funding to the GDS in the latest Budget, and the rate of turnover in the GDS is lower than in the Cabinet Office as a whole. The GDS has been brilliant. It continues to be brilliant whether we are talking about the platforms for registering to vote, which now takes less time than boiling an egg, finding an apprenticeship, or even registering for Lloyds shares earlier this month.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fact that we have made appointments within Departments to embed the work of the GDS not just at the GDS but across government?
Matthew Hancock
Yes, as well as building a digital service that is cutting edge, we now have more than 200 digital leaders across Whitehall to drive forward digital transformation. It would be good to have cross-party support for that rather than to hear sniping.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Given that the speed of technological change has been increasing over the past few years, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that compatibility and accessibility are increased as opposed to decreased as a result of what has happened over the past three years?
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that compatibility and interoperability must be at the heart of everything we do. They are at the heart of the digital standards that we require to be adhered to right across Whitehall. For a citizen, it does not matter what the acronym is of the organisation that they are trying to deal with, they just want their Government service delivered quickly and easily.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) is absolutely right that the levels of turnover in the Cabinet Office and the GDS are unacceptably high, and over the summer we saw the exodus of senior leadership amid concerns that the future of the service will be downgraded from a delivery service to a policy unit. We also note that businesses are losing on average 33 working days a year because of outdated Government digital services. Will the Minister reassure the House today that his Department is resisting cuts in the comprehensive spending review, as those cuts will seriously damage the prospect of thousands of businesses across the country?
Matthew Hancock
I can repeat the facts that I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) before the hon. Lady read out her question. The turnover in the GDS is lower than in the rest of the Cabinet Office. Furthermore, we put more money into digital services in the Budget. Perhaps she should look into the facts before asking questions.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
5. What assessment he has made of the cost to date to the public purse of the Chilcot inquiry.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
It is £10,375,000.
Gavin Newlands
It certainly appears as if the budget has been limitless up to this point. Members of this House will be deeply concerned about the reports of a White House memo allegedly showing that the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave his support for the shameful Iraq war a full year before this House voted on it, despite his claims to the contrary. For the first time, the cost of delay to the inquiry offers an opportunity. Will the Minister assure the House that Sir John Chilcot will include that memo in his final report?
Matthew Hancock
I am afraid that I cannot give any such assurance. This is an independent inquiry, and rightly so. Were I to give such an assurance, I would rightly be criticised.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Will the Minister assure the House that he remains committed to the independence of the Chilcot inquiry and that he will provide any resources that the inquiry needs to complete its work without further delay?
Matthew Hancock
Yes, we have offered extra resources to the Chilcot inquiry in case they are needed. We now have a timetable for a timetable for the release of the inquiry, and Sir John will write to the Prime Minister by 3 November to set out that timetable.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
We all know that the inquiry is independent, and we are not asking that the Cabinet Office interfere in the processes of the inquiry, but the budget and the timetable are within the Secretary of State’s remit. Does he not accept that this never-ending budget and this completely indefinite timetable are beginning to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the inquiry? When he speaks to Sir John, will he ensure that there is a firm timetable for the report and a firm figure for the final budget of the inquiry?
Matthew Hancock
We now have that commitment to a timetable by early November, but crucially we want to ensure that the inquiry is effective, is completed and can be published as soon as possible. We do not want resources to stand in the way of that happening.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
6. What plans his Department has to reduce the Whitehall estate as a result of further UK devolution. [R]
The Minister without Portfolio (Robert Halfon)
The Government have reduced the size of our central London estate quite radically from 185 holdings in 2010 to just 63 this year. The Government estate strategy, published in 2014, sets out a plan to continue this rationalisation further. Any reductions of staff numbers in London as a result of further UK devolution will help us deliver this change.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is a great supporter of devolution and of the northern powerhouse. This Government are more Chairman Mao than Joseph Stalin and we believe in letting a hundred flowers bloom when it comes to devolution. [Interruption.] We do not have a uniform approach and what works best for local communities will decide devolution powers. He will know that 22% of civil servants in the north-west are based in Liverpool and her Majesty’s Passport Office has a huge office in Liverpool with 650 staff—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister’s words should be heard, as these are important matters.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Carlisle has reasonably priced housing, relatively low commercial rents and spare capacity in both. Will the Minister consider relocating part of central Government to my constituency?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes an important point and he will be pleased to know that the Government have a target of moving 50% of Government buildings in London to outside London. As I said in answer to the previous question, a lot of progress has been made and the Government have saved £750 million cumulatively by moving out of 2,000 buildings, as well as raising £1.8 billion for the taxpayer.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does this talk of moving MI5 not give a great opportunity to reduce the Whitehall estate by bringing those jobs to Scotland? After all, it is a well-known MI5 fact that it would rather be located in Scotland.
Robert Halfon
I would love to be of more help to the hon. Gentleman, but I think he knows that no Government would ever comment on intelligence matters.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
7. What steps his Department is taking to remove the prohibition on UK citizens voting in UK elections after they have been abroad for 15 years.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
As my hon. Friend’s question suggests, British citizens living abroad lose the right to vote after 15 years. As British expatriates include people who have fought in our armed forces as well as people drawing British pensions or working for international companies around the world, we think that this limit is arbitrary and wrong. Removing it was in our election manifesto and I hope to lay proposals to make it happen before the House in due course.
Mims Davies
Many of my Eastleigh constituents have taken the time and trouble to write to me on this issue and support our manifesto commitment to restore full voting rights to UK citizens abroad, no matter how long they have lived outside the UK. What progress has the Minister made towards making this manifesto commitment a reality?
John Penrose
The measure was in the Queen’s Speech for this Session. I can inform my hon. Friend that we are in detailed discussions on the substance of the policy and I hope to make concrete proposals shortly.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
The Cabinet Office is responsible for efficiency, reforming government, transparency, civil society, digital technology and cyber-security and for delivering the Prime Minister’s agenda.
Mark Menzies
My constituency faces the issue of shale gas extraction—the issue runs across many Departments. What steps are being taken by the Cabinet Office to co-ordinate efficiency across the Government on this important matter?
Matthew Hancock
There are many occasions when multiple Government Departments are involved in different parts of a single issue. I well remember visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency to discuss shale gas, and I would be delighted to meet him further to take these issues forward.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
T5. Given that in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) the Minister seemed to suggest an endless budget for the Chilcot inquiry, how much does he think it is reasonable for the public to spend finally to get the answers they desire?
Matthew Hancock
Until the end of the year 2014-15, the amount spent on the Chilcot inquiry was £10,375,000. We have said that budget is available to make sure that this inquiry can be brought to a swift conclusion.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
T2. What steps is the Minister taking to improve access for our small and medium-sized enterprises to Government procurement, not least for our businesses in Mid Dorset and North Poole, such as Cobham in Wimborne and Tradewind in Wareham?
Matthew Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that a huge contribution can be made to Government procurement by small businesses. In the previous Parliament we hit our target of a quarter of Government procurement going to small business, and in this Parliament we have a new goal that a third of Government business should go to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
T6. A council candidate who is also a parliamentary candidate on the same day has an unfair financial advantage over their council opponents because they have additional candidate spending in that ward. What is the Minister going to do about it?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (John Penrose)
This is the first time the issue has been raised with me. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, I would be delighted to address it.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
T3. The Public Services (Social Value) Act has been in place since 2012. Many organisations and communities have benefited from its principles. Will the Minister outline the further steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to encourage a greater number of local authorities and Government Departments to adopt the Act?
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I thank my hon. Friend for being a vocal champion of the Act. The Public Services (Social Value) Act has helped achieve greater impact from public spending, resulting in better outcomes for individuals and communities. In line with Lord Young’s recommendations, I shall shortly announce a package of measures to support more public sector bodies to better utilise the Act.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T7. How is the Cabinet Office implementing the family test and monitoring its implementation across Government?
Matthew Hancock
The family test is routinely applied and considered when all policy is developed. Government policy as a whole has to go through a series of checks, and one of the things we do to make sure that the family test is passed is to stick to the strong economy that our families in Britain depend on.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
T8. Will the Minister please tell the House what protocols will be in place to ensure civil service neutrality during the EU referendum, with a view to avoiding another situation like that in the Scottish independence referendum, when impartiality was seriously compromised?
Matthew Hancock
As the hon. Lady knows, the issues surrounding the running of the EU referendum have been clearly debated in this House. The decisions were then taken and passed through this House, and that is what we will stick to.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
T9. The manifesto of Canada’s new Government said that they would scrap the purchase of F-35s. Given that the Cabinet Office was responsible for the consideration of the new F-35s, how does it expect unit cost to rise and will the contract be cancelled?
Matthew Hancock
I am afraid I did not catch the whole of the question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can repeat it. [Interruption.]
Douglas Chapman
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The manifesto of Canada’s new Government said that they would scrap the purchase of F-35s. Given that the Cabinet Office is responsible for the strategic defence and security review, have the Government given consideration to the unit costs, which will increase, given that other nations such as Canada might cancel their orders for F-35s?
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman asks a very important question about making sure that we can protect our national security long into the future. For a detailed answer he will wait for the SDSR to be published, but I can assure him that it will be published soon.
Mr Speaker
Mr Bone, you have never had any trouble making yourself heard. Let us hear from you.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
T4. Members on both sides of the House will be concerned about the steel crisis. Last Friday, at the steel summit, three taskforces were set up to help the steel industry. One of them is headed by the Paymaster General, so will he update the House on what progress has been made?
Matthew Hancock
I very much look forward to meeting the working group on procurement for steel later this week. It is absolutely critical that we make use of the new EU rules, which are only in place because this Government brought them in, to ensure that we consider not only the financial cost, but the wider economic benefit of buying British steel for British projects, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
T10. Will the Minister explain how the Government intend to safeguard the right of elected Governments to run the national health service democratically as a public service in the light of the threat of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?
Matthew Hancock
As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has long asked questions about this—there is no threat to the national health service from making sure that Britain has trade deals with the whole world which make us more prosperous, more secure and more economically forward-looking, and that is what we are going to make sure happens.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 October.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Susan Elan Jones
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Following an extensive public consultation, the Government’s retail sector champion, Kevin Hawkins, described our current Sunday trading laws as
“a workable compromise. Most people seem to be satisfied with it most of the time.”
Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree. I think that there is a strong case for change, but it is a change that we should allow local authorities to decide on, which is why we will be putting in front of the House, in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, the opportunity for that to happen. Let me give the hon. Lady and the House two examples of where I do not think the current situation works. First, there are these restrictions on opening hours for many stores—[Interruption.] Someone shouts, “What about families?” Well, there are many stores that families would like to shop in, but if they go to those stores they have to walk around for hours before they are actually allowed to buy anything. Secondly, people can already shop on Sunday—and anywhere they like—on the internet. I think that it is time to modernise our approach, give families more choice and help create jobs at the same time.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Q2. I have here a question from Iain of Enfield. He says:“This is an appeal to help those who no longer have any dignity and self-respect; the down and outs.”He calls for “a constructive attempt to tackle this growing urban problem.” Those words, which were spoken nearly 50 years ago by the late, great Conservative Member for Enfield West, Iain Macleod, resonate today, so will the Prime Minister’s all-out assault on poverty tackle and prevent homelessness?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Iain Macleod was indeed a great statesman, a great politician and someone who believed, as I do, that we should be as active in social reform as we are in economic reform. When it comes to tackling homelessness, we have the “No Second Night Out” initiative, which is working, particularly in London, to find people a home. Frankly, we have to do more, particularly with troubled families, as my hon. Friend has said, who need an intervention to help them, often in relation to mental health issues, and make sure that they get all the help they need to deal with their problems and ensure that they have not only a roof over their head, but a job and a livelihood too.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I know that the Prime Minister will absolutely welcome my first few questions, because they return to his favourite subject: tax credits. Yesterday, one of his Back Benchers said
“too many people will be adversely affected. Something must give. For those of us proud enough to call ourselves compassionate Conservatives, it must not be the backs of the working families we purport to serve.” —[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 876.]
Where was she wrong?
The Prime Minister
The tax credit changes are part of a package that includes a higher national living wage and tax reductions, and I think that is the right approach for our country. Let us make work pay, let us allow people to earn more, let us cut their taxes, and let us make welfare affordable. I am delighted that once again this measure passed the House of Commons last night with a big majority.
Jeremy Corbyn
If the Prime Minister is keen on tax credits helping people into work, I have got a question for him from Lisette, who says:
“A lot of people are setting up their own businesses as self-employed especially in rural areas where job vacancies are limited and pay is often low; tax credits help them until their business becomes established.”
Cutting tax credits damages her life opportunities and the life opportunities of anyone she might employ. Does the Prime Minister not see the value of giving support to people trying to improve their lives rather than cutting their ability to survive properly?
The Prime Minister
Of course we want to help the self-employed on low incomes, and that is why the people on the lowest incomes will continue to receive the child tax credit at £2,730. But there are other things we are doing to help the self-employed. We are cutting income tax—that helps the self-employed. We are introducing the employment allowance to cut the national insurance budget for the self-employed—that helps. Above all what we are doing is creating an economy with 2 million more people in work—an economy that is growing, wages that are rising, and inflation that is at zero. All these questions on tax credits in a way come back to the same point, which is how you build a strong and secure economy. You do not do it on the back of a massive deficit and an ever-increasing debt, which is what Labour left us with.
Jeremy Corbyn
This is all very strange, because the Prime Minister seems to have changed his mind on this subject in rather a large way. John emailed me to say:
“The Prime Minister solemnly declared on National television shortly before the last”—[Interruption]—
yes, solemnly, and I am solemn as well—
“shortly before the last general election that tax credits would not be affected.”
Is there any reason why this change has come about or any reason why we should believe the Prime Minister on any assurances he gives in relation to tax credits?
The Prime Minister
What we said before the election is that we would reduce welfare by £12 billion as part of getting the deficit down, part of getting the economy growing, and part of creating 2 million jobs. That is what happened at the election, and we are keeping our promises by delivering that stronger economy. The hon. Gentleman talks about something strange happening. Something quite strange did happen last night: we had a vote on tax credits and the deputy leader of the Labour party did not turn up. Can he explain that strange outing?
Jeremy Corbyn
If the Prime Minister cannot answer now on tax credits and the devastation that is causing—[Interruption.] Thank you—and the devastation that the cuts are causing to many people’s lives, can I ask him to deal with another subject, namely the steel industry? Does he appreciate the devastating effects that the Government’s non-intervention in the steel industry are having on so many people? I have got a question from a maintenance fitter at the Tata steelworks in Scunthorpe. He is helping to produce steel for Network Rail and many companies that were exporting it. He wants to know what the Prime Minister is going to do
“to support the steel industry and its workers facing redundancy.”
Is it not time to walk the walk rather than talk the talk about an industrial strategy?
The Prime Minister
We do want to help our steel industry, and we recognise—[Interruption.] Well, I will set out exactly how we will help the steel industry. It is in a very difficult situation. World prices have collapsed by more than half, and the surplus capacity in the world is more than 50 times the UK output, but our plan is to take action in four vital areas—in procurement, in energy costs, in unfair competition and dumping, and in tax and Government support. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are asking, “What have you done so far?” Well, let me take one example. We changed the procurement rules so that it was easier to source UK steel. That is why Crossrail—26 miles of tunnels, the biggest construction project anywhere in Europe—is being completed using almost exclusively British steel. That did not happen under the last Labour Government; it does happen now.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is not the real problem that the Government do not actually have an industrial strategy to protect this country’s most important industries? If they had, they would not have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this House three times in the last eight days. Thousands of jobs have already gone or are at risk in Redcar, Scunthorpe, Rotherham, Motherwell, Cambuslang, Wrexham and across the west midlands. Is it not time for concrete action today so that there is Government intervention and support for our steel industry and so that we have a viable steel industry for the long term, which this country desperately needs?
The Prime Minister
We do want a strong and viable steel industry, and that means taking action across all the areas that I mentioned. Let me mention another one: energy costs. We have already put £50 million into cutting energy costs, and our plans will mean hundreds of millions of pounds extra to cut them.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
You put them up!
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the Prime Minister. Mr Blenkinsop, a statesman-like demeanour is what I would hope for from someone who has served with distinction in the Opposition Whips Office. Calm yourself or take a sedative.
The Prime Minister
On energy, we will save hundreds of millions of pounds. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that last week in the House of Lords the Labour party voted to add to energy bills by opposing the measures we are taking on wind power. So, yes, we do have a strategy; we do have a plan and we should be working across the parties to deliver it. I met the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and neighbouring MPs back in November last year to make sure we could take all the action necessary, and across each of these areas that is exactly what we will do.
Jeremy Corbyn
Well, the Prime Minister met those Members to discuss the issue 11 months ago, but he has yet to go to the European Union to discuss how the British Government could intervene to protect our industry.
The final question I want to put to the Prime Minister comes from Louis. This is deeply embarrassing to all of us in this House and, indeed, to this country as a whole. He writes:
“The United Kingdom is currently being investigated by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because of allegations of ‘grave and systematic‘ violations of disabled people’s human rights.”
This is very sad news indeed, but it is even sadder that we need to be investigated because of violations that have occurred. Will the Prime Minister commit to co-operate fully with the inquiry and publish in full the Government’s response to it, so that we can ensure that people with disabilities are treated properly and legally and given full respect by and opportunities in our society?
The Prime Minister
First, let me take up the hon. Gentleman on the point he made about intervention in Europe. We have been doing this for months, making sure that there is proper action against dumping in the European Union. We have taken the cases to the European Commission and will continue to do so.
On the issue of helping disabled people in our country, tens of thousands more disabled people have got into work under this Government. Because of legislation passed by a previous Conservative Government, we have some of the strongest equality legislation anywhere in the world when it comes to disability. Of course I will look at any United Nations investigation, but sometimes when you look at these investigations you find that they are not necessarily all they are originally cracked up to be. There are many disabled people in our world who do not have any of the rights or any of the support that they get here in Britain, and I think we should be proud of what we do as we co-operate with this report.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Q5. Bruntcliffe school in my constituency was a struggling school, but it recently achieved its second best results in its history. The school reopened this September as part of the highly successful Gorse Academies Trust and continues to grow from strength to strength. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that all pupils have access to a great education and that no school is left behind?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are always happy to hear positive news from Morley and Outwood—it was not always that way. She makes an important point, which is that in school after school in our country, and often in some quite challenging neighbourhoods, inspirational headteachers are using the new tools we have given them and driving up standards. Measuring the percentage of those children getting good GCSEs is a key way to measure progress. I have myself been to schools where I have seen a 10, 20 or sometimes even 30-point improvement. Often, schools in inner-city areas are doing better than many schools in rather more well-heeled suburban areas. That shows that, with the right teaching and the right leadership, we can have real social opportunity right through our country.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Information has recently been released showing that a coroner has found that a 60-year-old disabled father of two from north London, Mr Michael O’Sullivan, committed suicide following his work capability assessment. The coroner warned that there is a risk of further deaths. The Department for Work and Pensions has reportedly undertaken 60 investigations into suicides that occurred after benefits were withdrawn or reduced, but it has so far refused to publish what it has learned. Will the Prime Minister publish those findings?
The Prime Minister
I am aware of the case the hon. Gentleman raises, although I am sure he will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the specifics of the cases. Suicide is always a tragic and complex issue. We should take these matters incredibly seriously. I will look very carefully at the specific question he asks about publication. We have changed the work capability assessment to lead to significant improvements, following a number of independent reviews, to make sure that people get the support that they need, and I think that is vitally important.
Angus Robertson
Under the Prime Minister’s plans to cut tax credits, a couple with two children living in a council house who both earn just above the minimum wage stand to lose more than £2,000. That is the equivalent of their basic rate of income tax rising a staggering 90%. Does the Prime Minister have the faintest idea of the human cost of his plans?
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is this: if the couple live in a council house, they are actually seeing a cut in their social rent, because of the plans set out in the Budget. If that couple have children, they will have support in terms of childcare. If that couple are working for a small business, they will have the opportunity of the enhanced employment allowance. If that couple are earning just above the minimum wage—if they are earning, for instance, £7 an hour and working a full-time working week—they will see a huge benefit as we increase the income tax allowance to £12,500. They will almost be paying no income tax at all. What we are doing is introducing higher pay and lower taxes, and that is the way to better family finances and a stronger economy.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Q6. Given the increasing violence in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, will my right hon. Friend wish the United Nations Secretary-General well on his visit to Jerusalem today? Does he agree with him when he says that“walls, checkpoints, harsh responses by the security forces and house demolitions”cannot achieve the peace that Israel desires?
The Prime Minister
I would agree that of course those things do not lead to peace, and what is required is a peace process to deliver a two-state solution. We will all have seen appalling murders on our television screens—knife stabbings of entirely innocent people in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel—and that is completely unacceptable. We need to make sure that this peace process gets going on a genuine basis of a two-state solution.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Q3. Food bank use has risen by 1,665% since the Prime Minister took office in 2010. In Cardiff Central I meet people every week who rely on food banks to feed their families. Does the Prime Minister know how many more families will be relying on food banks as a result of his Government’s cuts to tax credits, and does he care?
The Prime Minister
What is happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency is that the number of people claiming unemployment benefit is down 20% in the last year, the youth claimant count has fallen almost 20% in the last year and long-term youth unemployment has fallen in the last year by 38%. That is what is happening. Of course, I do not want anyone in our country to have to rely on food banks, but the right answer is a growing economy, creating jobs, higher wages, the national living wage and cutting taxes. That is what we are delivering and that is how to help Britain’s families.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Q12. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the key to getting higher wages and improving our export drive is actually tackling the productivity gap between ourselves and our European partners? Does he think that providing more skills for our manufacturing and engineering sectors is essential to that and will help us to deliver that mission?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain has had an excellent record over recent years on employment, with record numbers in work. We now need the productivity improvements that will make sure that we see real and sustained increases in living standards. Part of that is increasing the skills of our population. That is why the school reform, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) referred, is so important and why our target of 3 million apprentices for this Parliament is vital.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I represent a constituency of hard-working, decent people, yet in the forgotten communities of Milton, Possilpark, Springburn, Germiston, Garngad, Royston, Blackhill, Ruchazie and Haghill, child poverty lies at an astonishing 38.1%. I was going to ask whether the Prime Minister was at all touched by the waves of compassion coming even from his Back Benches in yesterday’s tax credit debate, but I think we have the answer to that, so I simply ask whether he can offer a personal guarantee that no child in my constituency will be worse off a year from now.
The Prime Minister
The point I would make to the hon. Lady is that those poverty figures come after 20 years of the great tax credit experiment. What we saw was an increase in the cost of tax credits and an increase in in-work poverty. We say that it is time for a new approach: higher pay, more jobs, lower taxes. In her constituency, the claimant count has come down by 10% in the last year. Compared with the time of the 2010 election, the number of people claiming unemployment benefit in her constituency is down 43%. I say let us give people the chance of a job, a salary, a decent wage and lower taxes.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Q13. Given Russia’s military expansion and North Korea’s development of a submarine-launched ballistic missile system that can strike the west, does the Prime Minister agree that this is no time to campaign for nuclear disarmament?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is right to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. Anyone who has any doubts about that only has to look at the dangers and uncertainty in our world. Frankly, it is very disappointing for this country that after having a cross-party consensus for so long that the nuclear deterrent was right for Britain, we now have a Leader of the Opposition who is campaigning with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Today, we are celebrating that great film, “Back to the Future”. I am not surprised that many people sitting behind him say that he should get in his DeLorean, go back to 1985 and stay there.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Q7. This morning, I was contacted by John who is a junior doctor in Newcastle and Alex who is a junior doctor in my constituency of Gateshead. They asked me to ask the Prime Minister how much longer he will support the Secretary of State for Health, when virtually the entire health service has no confidence in him.
The Prime Minister
I support the Secretary of State, because he is doing the right thing by increasing the investment in our health service by £10 billion across this Parliament. Let me speak directly to the junior doctors, whom the hon. Gentleman rightly represents. The plans that we have are not for increasing junior doctor hours, they are not for cutting junior doctor pay, and they are not even for making savings in the overall amount that junior doctors receive. They are about making sure that the health service works better for doctors and, above all, for patients. They are part of delivering the seven-day NHS that should be the objective of every Member of Parliament and everyone in our country.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Q14. On Sunday, I met parents from the Gidea Park primary school in my constituency to talk about the huge increase in the birth rate and the need to expand schools in outer London. There is a crisis at the moment. Will the Government ensure that there are adequate resources for outer London boroughs such as Havering, and is the Prime Minister prepared to meet a delegation of parents and members of the local council to discuss how we can resolve this serious issue?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We spent £5 billion on new school places in the last Parliament and we will spend £7 billion in this Parliament. I will look carefully at what is happening in outer London, but there is no doubt that there are pressures in our system. He makes the good point that our birth rate is going up, which is replacing our population, whereas the birth rate in countries such as Germany is not. We therefore do not need the wide-scale immigration that we have had and need to make sure that the numbers are properly under control.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Q8. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what plans are in place to ensure that the interests of all devolved nations are taken into account in his forthcoming letter to the European President, Donald Tusk, on EU reforms? What plans are in place to ensure that the devolved nations are represented in renegotiation discussions before the EU summit in December?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently met the First Minister of Scotland to discuss Europe, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that Scotland voted to stay in the United Kingdom, and the Edinburgh agreement said that we should respect the decision of the Scottish people. We had a United Kingdom general election, and we will have a United Kingdom referendum. On this of all days I was hoping he might raise the fact that, because of the Chinese state visit, Alexander Dennis, the bus maker in his constituency, is signing a £2 billion deal that will provide thousands of jobs. [Interruption.]
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I recently visited the British Army training unit in Suffield in Canada, and I met—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members of the Scottish National party must calm themselves. The hon. Lady is asking what I think is her first question to the Prime Minister, and that question will be heard in full.
Suella Fernandes
I recently visited the British Army training unit in Suffield in Canada, and I met many of our brave men and women who are undergoing advanced combat training, including my constituent, Major Iain Wallace of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. Many of them support the Government’s commitment to spending the NATO target of 2% of our GDP on protecting Britain’s interests. Will my right hon. Friend explain how that commitment will go towards investment in technology and equipment, and enable people such as Major Iain Wallace to do his job properly?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank Major Iain Wallace for his work. Crucially, that 2% of GDP will ensure that all those who join our splendid armed forces in the coming years know that they will have world-beating equipment and technology at their fingertips. That is a really important part of ensuring that we build strong morale in Britain’s excellent armed forces.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Q9. The operators of Hunterston coal terminal in my constituency, Peel Ports group, has announced significant redundancies. How will the Prime Minister work with Peel Ports to explore alternative uses for the terminal which is suitable for imports and exports of a wide range of bulk solids, liquid products, and offshore decommissioning?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue. The Government work closely with Peel Ports because of the enormous amount of key infrastructure and land that it owns. I will look carefully with the Secretary of State and the devolved authorities to see whether there is more that we can do in this instance.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, if the other place were to vote against changes to working tax credits, that would be a serious challenge to the privilege of this House—a privilege that was codified as long ago as 1678? Does he further share my concern that such a move would entitle him to review the decisions of Grey and Asquith on creating more peers, to ensure that the Government get their financial business through?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point—his knowledge of history is clearly better than mine, because I thought the key date was the Parliament Act 1911. Under that Act, issues of finance are supposed to be decided in this House. This House has now decided twice in favour of the measure on tax credits—once when voting on the statutory instrument and again last night in a vote scheduled by the Opposition. The House of Lords should listen to that carefully and recognise that it is for this House to make financial decisions, and for the other House to revise other legislation.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q10. My constituent, Esther Sebborn, is a working mother of one and she is worried. She earns above the so-called national living wage, but is set to lose about £1,700 per year if the Government’s changes to tax credits go ahead. What has the Prime Minister got to say to Esther?
The Prime Minister
What I would say to Esther is that we want to help by making sure we cut her taxes, so that her first £11,000 is entirely tax free. That comes into effect next April. If Esther has children, we want to help with the childcare, not just for the two, three and four-year-olds but with tax relief on childcare in future years. If Esther is running a small business, we are helping through the employment allowance. In all those ways, I would say to Esther and to everybody else, this is a package. We want to see higher pay, lower taxes and reformed welfare. The biggest damage to Esther and to all those in that situation would be to return to Labour’s high taxing, high spending and high borrowing wrecking our economy.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Extremism is one of the biggest social problems that we currently face in Britain. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need to redouble our efforts, through the Government’s counter-extremism strategy, to address the scourge of extremism in Britain?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we passed the Prevent duty and put that duty on every public body in our country—on schools, colleges and universities. The Home Secretary and I were in a school in Luton this week listening to teachers who said it has made a real difference and that referrals into the Channel programme are happening far more quickly because of the changes we have made. Fighting extremism and recognising that we have to attack it before it becomes violent extremism is going to be the struggle of our generation. We have to undermine the awful narrative of victimhood and grievance, which so many are using, that eventually leads to violence.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Q11. On 16 September, the Prime Minister told this House that he would do everything he could to keep steelmaking on Teesside. He failed. Now we learn that the £30 million support package that the Government promised for retraining and economic regeneration is not only going towards the statutory redundancies of those who lost their jobs: I have an email from the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse to a constituent in Stockton South that says it will also be used to pay for the final salaries of those who have lost their jobs in the past month. This is an insult. How much more injustice does the Prime Minister think the people of Teesside can endure?
The Prime Minister
We will do everything we can to help, including the financial package that the hon. Lady set out—making sure we help people with retraining and new opportunities, and with bringing new industries to the area—but let me tell her what we cannot do. We cannot in this House set the world price of steel and we cannot overcome the fact that the SSI plant had lost £600 million in this Parliament. Those are the facts which, frankly, Opposition Members have to engage with.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In answer to my question yesterday about our EU renegotiations, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that there was little or no prospect of this Parliament alone being able to say no to any unwanted EU directive, tax or regulation. Can I ask the Prime Minister to try to put that right?
The Prime Minister
What we have said is that we want to see a system of red cards on new EU regulations. It is for national Parliaments to work together to deliver that, but that is only one of the things that we want to change in our relationship with Europe. For instance, getting Britain out of ever closer union is not simply a symbol; it will be taken into account in all future jurisprudence when the European Court of Justice is considering whether to go ahead with a measure. In the end, hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, will have to choose whether to stay in Europe on an amended basis or whether to leave. I am determined to deliver the strongest possible renegotiation that addresses the concerns of the British people, so that we have a proper choice.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q15. Did the Prime Minister make clear to the Chinese President the urgent need to stop Chinese steel dumping? If so, what was the response? Will he meet once again with north Lincolnshire MPs to see what more can be done to support steelmaking in Scunthorpe?
The Prime Minister
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was at the summit on Friday. I met him back in November, and I am always happy to meet him and neighbouring MPs again. After this Question Time, I am going straight to No. 10 for several hours of talks with the Chinese President, and there will be every opportunity to talk about this issue. I began those discussions last night. I think the Chinese recognise that they have huge overcapacity in their steel industry, which they have to address as well, but I say again that I do not want to make promises I cannot keep—[Interruption.] We cannot set the steel price here in this—[Interruption.] We cannot set the steel price here in this House, and we cannot go beyond the sorts of steps I have talked about on procurement, energy and industrial support. Opposition Members might, however, like to remember their own record. Under Labour, steel production halved. Under Labour, employment in steel halved. Since I have been Prime Minister, steel production has gone up and steel employment has stayed the same. So before we get a self-righteous lecture from Labour, I would say to them, “Look at your own record!”
Chris Philp
I suspect those cheers were for the Prime Minister, rather than me.
Does the Prime Minister agree that one reason some steel plants have suffered difficulties is that wholesale electricity prices in this country are twice the level in Germany, and that the many green taxes imposed by the former Labour party leader, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), under the last Labour Government are a significant reason for that?
Mr Speaker
Order. We do not need to waste time with this. It has nothing to do with Government policy. [Interruption.] Order. It has nothing to do with current Government policy.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Thousands of people who installed cavity wall insulation now have damp, mouldy houses because the system has failed and let in rainwater. Many people, misled into believing that it was a Government scheme, now find the industry guarantee difficult to access and insufficient. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in this scandal, to ensure that disabled people in particular are fully compensated and to avert further reputational damage to the Government’s energy conservation measures?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at the issue, because it touches on the larger point that the obligations we put on energy companies lead to higher prices—and that goes directly to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) was quite rightly trying to make. Even last week, the Labour party in the House of Lords voted to put up energy prices, which impacts on steel users. They ought to try doing the same thing in the House of Lords as in the House of Commons.
Several hon. Members rose—
Points of Order
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Generations of your predecessors defended the privileges of this House, and the greatest privilege of all is the principle of no taxation without representation. Indeed, we lost the American colonies in the 18th century because a previous Government forgot that. We had a lively debate yesterday on tax credits, and many of us would like to see some movement from the Government, but surely it is the elected representatives of the people who decide on tax and spending. In your discussions with the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords, will you make it clear that it is not for the unelected House of Lords to determine tax and spend?
Mr Speaker
I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. My own feeling from the Chair is that the other place can look after itself; but we also can and will look after ourselves. I think it would be much more dignified for the Chair not to become drawn into what might be a public spat between the two Houses. In the final analysis, each House knows what the factual constitutional position is, and that position is what it is of long standing.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thankfully, the Prime Minister is not driving an Alexander Dennis bus, because his Scottish geography is somewhat askew. The plant is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally).
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his ingenuity and wit, but I have a hunch that he is trying to continue an argument that took place a few moments ago, and he would not expect me to join in. We will leave it there.
Bill Presented
Sugar in Food and Drinks (Targets, Labelling and Advertising) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Jeremy Lefroy, Mr Mark Williams, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Dr Julian Lewis, Martyn Day, Helen Goodman and Angela Rayner, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set targets for sugar content in food and drinks; to provide that sugar content on food and drink labelling be represented in terms of the number of teaspoonfuls of sugar; to provide for standards of information provision in advertising of food and drinks; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 November, and to be printed (Bill 82)
Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to provide that opposite sex couples may enter a civil partnership; and for connected purposes.
The eagle-eyed among those remaining in the Chamber will have spotted that this Bill has form. It is identical to the Bill I brought before the House last year, and it mirrors the amendment I proposed during the report stage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in May 2013. My Bill therefore makes its hat-trick appearance today, unencumbered by any other legislation, in the hope that it will be third time lucky and will move into Committee.
Just as the House decided it was time for equal marriage then, it is surely time for equal civil partnerships now, particularly as they remain an unintended inequality created by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and they are backed by many supporters of that legislation, as well as by those, like me, who were less enthusiastic about it. Indeed, the Government’s original consultation, before the first Bill, showed 61% of respondents in favour of extending civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. Alas, for some inexplicable reason, it never made it into the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, which would, I think, have made it a better Act. That is why change is still necessary today.
There are two main rationales for supporting the Bill. First, it will correct what I have mentioned as an unintended but glaring inequality resulting from the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act whereby same-sex couples are still entitled to continue in a civil partnership, to take up a civil partnership or to enjoy the recent extension of marriage, while opposite-sex couples have only the option of conventional marriage, albeit by a larger range of religious institutions. That is not fair. It gives rise to an inequality in what was billed as an “Act to promote equalities”.
Secondly, a positive reason for pushing forward with this Bill is family stability. In 2010, an Office for National Statistics report said that there were some 2,893,000 cohabiting opposite-sex couples in this country—almost double the figure reported some 15 years earlier. Some 53% of all birth registrations are to married parents, but around a third are to unmarried parents who are living together. Indeed, cohabitation is the fastest-growing form of family in this country, and we need to recognise that our society is changing.
People choose not to get involved in the paraphernalia of formal marriage for a variety of reasons: it is too much of an establishment thing to do; it is identified as an innately religious institution for many, and even if done in a register office, it has religious connotations; some see it as having a patriarchal side, so it is seen as some form of social control. Those are not my own views, but are certainly the way many see it.
There are a whole lot of complex motives as to why many of our constituents do not go down the formal marriage route. They are mostly still in committed, loving relationships, but if they do not want to go for traditional marriage, they have no way of having that recognised in the eyes of the state. Particularly worrying is the common misconception that there is such a thing as a common law wife or husband, as a woman typically finds out abruptly on the death of a partner, when there is an inheritance tax bill on the estate, and potentially on the family home. If a woman has a child with her partner and the relationship breaks down, she is not entitled to any form of financial support if they are not married. There is no automatic entitlement to property, even if she had been paying into the mortgage.
Where one partner is much older than the other and there is a reasonable expectation that one will die some years before the other, the long-term survivor would not receive the same tax benefits as a married woman or those in a civil partnership, which would be discriminatory towards the couple’s children. Even a couple engaged to be married have more rights than a cohabiting couple.
The question is, why should not those who have made a conscious choice not to go for a traditional marriage have the opportunity to have the same rights, responsibilities and protections in the eyes of the law that we rightly, and not before time, extended to same-sex couples back in 2004?
However, there is a further major practical benefit in achieving equality of civil partnerships and opening them up to opposite-sex couples: family stability. The Centre for Social Justice has calculated that the cost to this country of family breakdown is some £48 billion, or some 2.5% of gross domestic product. That is a big problem, a growing problem, and a costly problem—costly, both financially and socially, to our society.
Fewer than one in 10 married parents have split up by the time a child reaches the age of five—compared with more than one in three of those who are cohabiting but not married—and 75% of family breakdowns involving children under five result from the separation of unmarried parents. The Centre for Social Justice has produced a raft of statistics showing that a child who is not in a two-parent family is much more likely to fall out of school and 70% more likely to be addicted to drugs, and is more likely to get into trouble with the law, to be homeless, and not to be in employment, education or training. That is not to be judgmental about parents who find themselves having to bring up a child alone through no fault of their own, but two partners make for greater stability.
We know that marriage works, but we also know that civil partnerships are beginning to show evidence of greater stability for same-sex couples, including those who have children, be it through adoption, surrogacy or whatever. There is a strong case for believing that extending civil partnerships would improve that stability for many more families in different ways. If just one in 10 cohabiting opposite-sex couples entered into a civil partnership, that would amount to some 300,000 couples and their children. It would offer the prospect of yet greater security, greater stability, less likelihood of family breakdown, better social outcomes and better financial outcomes. That, surely, is progress.
There is a further application. Many people who have strong religious beliefs—particularly Catholics who have ended up getting divorced, which is in conflict with certain religious teachings—may not be inclined to get married again if they meet a new partner, because their Church supposedly believes that they should be married for life. In many cases, however, they would be able to reconcile that position by entering into a new formal commitment through an opposite-sex civil partnership. So there are a number of practical, real-life scenarios in which civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples could achieve something very positive.
Opposite-sex civil partnerships are not something that has been cooked up in this country. In South Africa, the Civil Union Act 2006 gave same-sex and opposite-sex couples the option to register a civil union by way of a marriage or a civil partnership on the same basis. In France, the pacte civil de solidarité—or PACS, as it is known—was introduced in 1999 as a form of civil union between two adults of the same sex or the opposite sex, and now gay marriage has been added to that. Interestingly, one in 10 PACS has been dissolved in France, while one in three marriages ends in divorce. There is evidence that some of those civil partnerships have created greater stability, whether they are opposite-sex or same-sex partnerships.
No complications are involved in my proposal. I want opposite-sex civil partnerships to be offered on exactly the same basis as same-sex civil partnerships. It would not be possible for someone to become a civil partner with a close family member, or if that person was already in a union, and the partnership would need to be subject to the same termination criteria. It is a simple proposal, and surely the case is overwhelming. All that is required is a simple one-line amendment to the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It could all be done and dusted in Committee by teatime.
There is a growing tide of support for this measure, fuelled by a court case that is currently being considered by the High Court, and which I will not go into. Suffice it to say that the outcome of that case could have substantial implications for many other couples who simply want their families to be recognised in the eyes of the state. The issue began when the couple involved approached their local register office to register their opposite-sex partnership. As they put it—and I saw them only this morning—
“We wanted to formalise our relationship and celebrate it with friends and family but we're not able to do it for what seems like no apparent reason. We prefer the idea of a civil partnership because it reflects us as a couple—we want equality through our relationship and with a baby now we want the protections offered by formalising marriage.”
Many Members believe that the time has come to back equal civil partnerships, potentially to the benefit of many cohabiting couples and their children, and of the stability of our society as a whole. My Bill has widespread cross-party support inside and outside the House. This concise and simple but important measure could bring about equality for those who choose civil partnership, and I urge the House to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Loughton, Mr Graham Brady, Andy Slaughter, Caroline Lucas, Greg Mulholland, Mr Geoffrey Robinson, Sir Roger Gale, Stephen Twigg, Mrs Anne Main, Keir Starmer, Pauline Latham and Mark Durkan present the Bill.
Tim Loughton accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2016 and to be printed (Bill 83).
Cities and Local Government Devolution [Lords] Bill
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:23 - divided: - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:37 - divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:54 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
I beg to move amendment 29, in page 1, line 14, leave out “under section 2”
This amendment would be consequential on leaving out clause 2.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
New clause 1—Competences of local government—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with representatives from local government, publish a list of competences of local government.
(2) After the list has been published, the Secretary of State may not publish any amended list of competences of local government without first obtaining approval of the revised list consent from—
(a) the House of Commons, with two-thirds of its membership voting in favour of the amended list, and
(b) the Local Government Association.”
This new clause would define the independence of local government, and entrench it beyond easy repeal.
New clause 13—Double Devolution statements—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown who has introduced a Bill in either House of Parliament having the effect of devolving functions or powers of the United Kingdom Parliament or the Secretary of State to a combined authority must, before the second reading of the Bill, make a double devolution statement on the arrangements for further devolving those functions or powers to the most appropriate local level except where those powers can more effectively be exercised by central government or by a combined authority.
(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such a manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.”
The intention of this new clause is to make clear what double devolution to smaller councils and neighbourhoods will occur in the wake of big city deals being agreed by combined authorities when giving powers to cities and/or combined authorities.
New clause 18—Independent Review, Support and Governance—
‘(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament each year a report about devolution within England and Wales pursuant to the provisions of this Act (an “annual report”).
(2) An annual report shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after 31 March each year.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for an Independent Commission or Advisory Board to undertake a review, challenge and advisory role in relation to:’
(a) reviewing orders and procedure arising from the Secretary of State’s decisions; and
(b) requests for orders received from combined or single local authorities.”
This new clause would ensure the Secretary of State has the necessary power to create an Independent Commission or Advisory Board to scrutinise the work of the Secretary of State relating to devolution, Annual Devolution Report and handle requests from local government about the decisions made by the Secretary of State.
New clause 22—Devolution in London—
‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on a greater devolution of powers in London, including on whether to make provision for the Secretary of State to—
(a) transfer a public authority function to a joint committee of London councils, and
(b) establish a joint board between London boroughs and the Mayor of London to support further devolution in London, and
(c) devolve responsibility on fiscal powers, including but not limited to, setting and revaluating local tax rates, banding and discounts.”
This new clause makes it a requirement for the Secretary of State to report on further devolution options for London, including fiscal devolution (e.g. council tax revaluation, etc) which has been called for by the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London.
New clause 23—Fair funding settlement: report—
Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact on the functions of combined authorities of the fairness of the distribution of funding from central government to local authorities, particularly with regard to levels of deprivation.”
This new clause would require a report linking the impact of devolution with the level of funding.
New clause 25—Public authority functions—
Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a list of public authority functions which may be the subject of a transfer of functions under the provision of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to be more specific about the functions which it intends to developed to mayors, combined authorities and other local authorities.
Government amendment 4.
Amendment 51, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
‘(2A) An order under subsection (1) may not be made unless the proposition that the combined authority have a mayor is approved by a referendum of the electorate in that combined authority.”
The intention of this amendment is that elected mayors will be introduced only if that proposal has been endorsed, in a referendum, by 50% of the population.
Amendment 43, in page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
‘(8) An order under this section providing for there to be a mayor for the area of a combined authority may be revoked or amended by making a further order under this section; this does not prevent the making of an order under section 107 abolishing the authority (together with the office of mayor) or providing for a constituent part of the combined authority to leave the combined authority and to resume its existence as a separate local authority.
(8A) An order under this section providing for a constituent part of the combined authority to leave the combined authority and to resume its existence as a separate local authority must make fair provision for a reasonable and proportionate division of resources between the former combined authority and the seceding local authority.”
The intention of this amendment is that a constituent part of a combined authority can leave a combined authority without the combined authority being dissolved, with provision for “fair terms” for the leaving part (i.e. their resource is calculated on a per capita basis, or similar.)
Amendment 46, in page 2, line 38, at end insert—
‘(10) This section does not apply to the County of Somerset, as defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997.”
Amendment 39, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) For an area of a Combined Authority where for any part of that area there exists both a County Council and District Council, no order may be made under section 107A unless either the Secretary of State or the existing combined authority has carried out a consultation with local government electors on replacing the existing County Council and District Councils with one or more unitary authorities.”
Amendment 44, in page 3, line 14, at end insert—
‘(4A) A constituent council may withdraw consent after the creation of a combined authority and a mayor for that authority.
(4B) Where one or more constituent councils have withdrawn their consent under subsection (4A), the Secretary of State must make an order either:
(a) abolishing the combined authority and the office of mayor, or
(b) reconstituting the combined authority without the non-consenting council or councils concerned”.
The intention of this amendment is that a constituent council may withdraw its consent to the creation of a combined authority, in which case the Secretary of State must either abolish the authority and mayor or re-constitute the authority without any non-consenting council.
Amendment 53, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may make an order under section 107A in relation to a combined authority‘s area if a proposal for other appropriate governance and accountability structures for the authority’s area has been made to the Secretary of State by the constituent authorities.
(2B) The Secretary of State may set out accountability and governance tests in respect of other appropriate governance structures.
(2C) Orders may allow for a mayor or other appropriate governance structure to enter into collaborative working arrangements with more than one combined authority, or local partnership board covering for example rural areas.”
This amendment would allow for a mayor to work with more than one Combined Authority, or partnership board covering, for example, rural areas.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendments 18 to 22.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 57, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where the mayor for the area of a combined authority appoints a deputy, regard to gender balance must be given”
This amendment is intended to make sure that gender balance is taken into account in mayor/deputy teams
Clause 4 stand part.
New clause 21—Consultation with local community—
The Secretary of State must make an order to determine the consultation processes which will be used with the local community.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that mayors are provided only where the local resident population has been properly consulted.
Amendment 56, in clause 6, page 6, line 24, at end insert
“which is not restricted to a specific governance structure”
This amendment will allow a council to choose any form of governance and would be defined as a local authority according to the 1992 Local Government Finance Act.
Amendment 42, in clause 8, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
‘(2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament at least once in each calendar year a report on the exercise by the Secretary of State of powers which have been devolved to the mayor of a combined authority.”
The intention of this amendment is that the Government should publish every year publish a report that shows that it has not exercised a power that has been devolved to a combined authority mayor.
Amendment 59, in clause 11, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
‘(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the performance of the Localism Act 2011 and a review of the general power of competence provision.”
This amendment requires a review of the Localism Act and local authority innovation.
Government amendments 27 and 28.
James Wharton
As well as amendment 29, I will speak to Government amendments 4, 18 to 22, 27 and 28, and to the stand parts for clause 1, clause 2, clause 3, schedule 1, and clause 4. I will also comment, if time and the mood of the Committee permits, on new clauses 1, 13, 18, 22, 23 and 25, amendments 51, 43, 46, 39, 44, 53 and 57, and new clauses 21, 56, 42 and 59, which have been placed in the same group.
The range of interest that has been shown in this Bill speaks for itself. On Second Reading 76 colleagues made contributions, and there was a great deal of consensus. This Bill is of a consensual nature, and while there are issues that we will be discussing in Committee, it is important to put that on record. My intention and that of the Government today is to reflect on the debate that is now to take place and take that into account going forward. We hope this debate can continue in this consensual tone and that it will characterise the passage of this Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 were inserted into the Bill in the other place. We have considered carefully the arguments in support of the clauses. We share the views of those who supported the clauses about the importance of the Government’s accountability to Parliament for the devolutionary measures and deals they pursue.
Clause 1 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to provide annual reports to Parliament setting out information about devolution deals. We recognise that the effect of this clause will be to bring together in an annual report to Parliament details about the whole range of devolutionary activity. While some, if not most, of this information will have been made available to Parliament in the ordinary course of business, we accept that there can be value in such a comprehensive annual report, enhancing transparency and accountability. The Government therefore accept that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Amendments that hon. Members have now tabled seek in various ways to extend the reporting requirements. We are not persuaded that these are needed to ensure the transparency and accountability that we all wish to see, but I will listen carefully to the debate and we will consider further expanding the reporting requirements on devolution in due course subject to the arguments hon. Members put forward.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen)—whom I may refer to occasionally throughout today’s discussion—has tabled new clause 18, which would require the Secretary of State annually to lay before Parliament a devolution report and enable the Secretary of State to establish an independent body to provide advice on devolution of powers. I think the reporting requirement he has in mind is already covered by clause 1, and while we accept the importance of reports, I do not believe a case can be made to establish some new independent body to provide advice. I fear that any such step would simply lead to additional costly bureaucracy.
The hon. Gentleman has also tabled new clause 13, which would require the publication of a report about how powers devolved to combined authorities are being further devolved. I know he takes great interest in that issue, in line with the devolution agenda more broadly, and wants that taken forward. The Government attach importance to such further devolution. In the Localism Act 2011 we have recognised the importance of neighbourhoods and of neighbourhood planning, and of communities being able to take ownership and management of community assets or take on the provision of local services. This is an important element of devolution and I can see the case for any comprehensive report about devolution covering these matters.
Amendment 42 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). It would require the Government to publish an annual report about powers that have been devolved to a combined authority mayor. This again is an important matter and there is a case for information about this to be included in any comprehensive annual report on devolution. The Government recognise that and want to find the right solution for the concerns hon. Members have.
The shadow Secretary of State and the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Croydon North (Mr Reed), for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) have tabled new clause 22 which would make it a requirement for the Secretary of State to report on further devolution options for London, including fiscal devolution which has been called for by the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. As we made clear in the other place, we are open to discussing with London plans for the devolution of wider powers. Indeed, the Mayor and London Councils have already sent in formal devolution proposals and the Government are engaged in discussions regarding these. We are committed to taking forward these discussions and I doubt whether there is a need for some further reporting requirement therefore to be included in this Bill.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that these devolution powers from central Government apply to Manchester and to the interim authority and mayor after 2017, and that it is not the reverse—from local authorities up to a combined authority or mayor system—and that with spatial planning it will take the full agreement of the 10 leaders who make up the cabinet and a two-thirds majority for all other decisions? Will he confirm that to the Committee today?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are talking about powers that are being transferred from Whitehall and Westminster and from Ministers and public bodies to combined authorities —to the areas that are making these devolution deals. It is not about powers being taken up from local councils and authorities, unless they choose to so pool them. That option is on the table, but there is nothing in this Bill that would compel it. In Greater Manchester, as part of that deal and the accountability we want to build into the process, the combined authority has a two-thirds mechanism for holding the mayor to account. That is an important part of that deal and one that gives the reassurances people in Greater Manchester—the local authority leaders who reached that deal with us—and hon. Members will want to see as we take this process forward.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In theory devolution is fantastic, of course, and we all agree with it, but in this debate on Sunday trading will the Minister at least listen to religious people who feel the country is becoming increasingly secular and consumerist? Their concerns have to be handled very sensitively by the Government. That does not necessarily mean they cannot proceed, but those concerns have to be handled sensitively. Will he assure the Committee he will do that?
James Wharton
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Government have consulted on, and made clear our intention to introduce as part of this Bill, Sunday trading devolution. We will have full opportunity to discuss that. This Bill is currently being discussed in Committee on the Floor of the House. There will be time for discussion and we will work with colleagues and listen to their concerns, and we will try to find a consensus, so if change is to be delivered it has the support of the House and of the broadest possible base of opinion in this country.
We accept the case for transparent and comprehensive reporting—indeed, we are advocates for it—but we are clear that the devolution statement that clause 2 requires to accompany any future Bill would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. For many Bills, such a devolution statement would be irrelevant, as the Bill would have no implications for functions that can be devolved. There is a real risk that, in practice, the production of such a statement would become a tick-box exercise, at best adding no real value and at worst becoming a distraction from driving forward real devolution, for which I think there is a broad consensus in favour among Members.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
The Minister is making a rational and cogent argument. I would like to take him back to the question of double devolution, which has been raised with me by many, including the key cities—those that I would perhaps describe as the second-tier cities, rather than the core cities. They are concerned that power should not simply go from Whitehall to town hall, and that there should be an evolutionary process in which power continues to be devolved to neighbourhoods, parishes and other smaller bodies. If the Minister will not accept my amendment, will he give those cities some reassurance that there will be strong Government oversight to ensure that the devolution does not stop at the town hall?
James Wharton
Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. Every devolution proposal will involve a deal between the Government and those local areas that want devolution. As part of those deals, we will look at what further steps can be taken. We recognise the principle, which he advocates, that decisions should be taken at the lowest level of government at which they can effectively be taken. If an area with which we were having discussions wanted that to be part of the deal, and if we could work with it to deliver it, it would be our intention to do that.
Returning to clause 2, it would be easy for some future Government to parade their devolutionary credentials because every one of their Bills had a devolution statement, while in reality they might have done little to continue to meet what I confidently predict will be a continually growing appetite for devolution across the country. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about the existence of that appetite. Accordingly, the Government are opposed to clause 2 standing part of the Bill, and amendment 29 is consequential to the removal of the clause from the Bill, deleting the reference to that clause in clause 1.
The hon. Gentleman has tabled a number of amendments that would have constitutional implications. We will consider most of them later today, but new clause 1 is in this group. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a list of local government competences, having first agreed them with representatives from local government. Once published, the list could be amended only with the approval of two thirds of the membership of the House of Commons and the approval of the Local Government Association.
I understand the reason for new clause 1 but I cannot support it. When codification of the relationship between central and local government has been attempted in the past, it has failed, as was recognised by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of this House. In their response to a report from the Committee in 2013, the Government commented that codification fails because it is about processes, rather than about policy intended to improve outcomes. Instead of liberating local leaders, a codified relationship could simply serve to focus energy on theoretical debate, rather than on shared endeavour, problem solving and action.
Mr Allen
I will speak about this at greater length later, but may I make one specific point now? Historically, local government has felt uneasy about its relationship of subordination to central Government, and a means of reassuring local government of all political parties would be to entrench the settlement that the Minister is proposing and to find a way in which to reassure local government about its long-term sustainability and its independence from central Government. Will he undertake to have a think about this matter, so that he will be able to ensure even more co-operation from local government?
James Wharton
I will of course give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking, and I shall listen carefully to what he says later. I know that he has a great deal of expertise in this area, and I recognise some of his concerns. It is important that we find the right mechanism to address them as best we can in the Bill.
Amendment 59 and new clauses 23 and 25 have been tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), and his colleagues. Amendment 59 would require a report reviewing the Localism Act 2011. New clause 23 would require the Government to publish a report about the impact on combined authorities of the way in which resources had been distributed through the local government settlement. New clause 25 would require the Government to publish a list of the public authority functions which may be transferred.
We do not consider amendment 59 to be necessary. The Government are committed to a process of post-legislative scrutiny to review the effectiveness of legislation and to inform the development of future legislation. The lead Department submits a report to the Select Committee, usually within three to five years of the legislation receiving Royal Assent, with its preliminary assessment of how the Act has worked in practice in relation to its objectives and benchmarks, as identified during the passage of the Bill. This would inform the Select Committee’s view on whether to conduct a fuller post-legislative inquiry into the Act. The additional steps proposed in amendment 59 are therefore unnecessary.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
When the Localism Act was passed, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—in a previous guise—produced an annual report on how each Department was doing in regard to devolution. Unfortunately, that practice was stopped, but the right hon. Gentleman came to the Select Committee and argued strongly that it should be continued. Does the Minister think his boss has changed his mind?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman shares my admiration for my Secretary of State and for the work that he has done in this area of policy over an extended period. It is of course open to my right hon. Friend to do that again, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will wish to prevail upon him and to repeat his argument on the value of considering that course of action. However, I do not think it necessary to include amendment 59 in the Bill.
We also consider new clause 23 to be unnecessary. It would not add anything to the information we already provide. By separating Government funding from the other sources of income available to local authorities, as the new clause proposes, and by isolating deprivation from other drivers of spend—for example, the impact of population sparsity in rural areas—the report required by the new clause would fail to present a properly rounded picture of the settlement. As hon. Members know, we already publish an annual assessment of the impact of the settlement on authorities’ wider spending power and an equalities statement on the settlement’s effect. Moreover, the settlement is subject to wide-ranging consultation and comes before Parliament for approval. I am not persuaded that anything further of this nature is needed in the Bill.
On new clause 25, I remind hon. Members that this Government’s devolution policy is a bottom-up one. We want to ensure that devolution opportunities are available to all parts of England, including rural and coastal areas, counties, towns and cities. On Second Reading, we discussed at some length the devolution deal that has been done with Cornwall, a non-city area that wants to be part of this process and that has got behind a plan that it believes can drive real change for the better. The enthusiasm from hon. Members from Cornwall who spoke in that debate was obvious and is commendable.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes the important point that rural areas should be protected. Will he give the House an undertaking that rural areas that are close to urban areas will be protected from being swallowed up by those neighbouring cities?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend raises a point that I know is close to his heart. He has tabled amendments to the Bill, which we shall discuss later. No area will be compelled to agree a devolution deal. The purpose of the Bill is to enable us to put such a deal on the table for any area that wants one, but it does not give us the power to compel any area to accept it. His comment is in line with the Government’s intentions in the legislation. We want to ensure that devolution and the benefits it can bring are there for everybody, but we will not compel areas to be part of it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Minister has talked about a bottom-up approach. From what I understand, Manchester is to be offered powers over policing. We had a bottom-up approach in Wales as a result of the Silk commission, which was sponsored by the UK Government, in which all parties agreed that policing powers should be devolved to Wales, just as they are in Northern Ireland and Scotland. However, the draft Wales Bill was published yesterday and the devolution of policing is missing from it. Can the Minister explain the ambiguity of the Government’s position?
James Wharton
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s diligence in raising his concern, particularly given that that is his area of expertise. Rather than my commenting on it in the debate on this Bill, however, I would gently suggest that it is a matter that should be discussed in a Welsh context in the debates on the Wales Bill.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Minister has given the welcome assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that no rural area neighbouring an urban or metropolitan area would be held to becoming a member of it. Will he also give the Committee an assurance that any rural area wishing to join a combined or mayoral authority will be able to do so?
James Wharton
That would be entirely a matter for the proposal put forward by the local area in question. We would certainly be open to whatever geography an area wished to present as the most logical for its economy and the most able to allow it to drive forward the changes and improvements we envisage being enabled by the Bill. So yes, that would be possible, but only by agreement and in line with the Government’s approach to devolution.
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to divert my attention from the amendments. The steps this Government are taking on business rates are generally welcomed by local government—that is my experience of the discussions I have had. They are another step towards giving local government the certainty, control and freedom it wants, and delivering on our agenda. They are broadly in line with the devolutionary approach that we are taking and is envisaged by the Bill.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister mentioned that local areas can choose what area will bid for these devolved powers, based on their own local needs. What size of population or of economy would an area need to get this devolution? There has been some suggestion that the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire bid is not large enough.
James Wharton
It is up to local areas to make proposals, and we will look at the offers and deals. Thirty-eight proposals were submitted before the 4 September deadline by areas interested in being part of this process. We will seek to ensure that any proposal makes economic sense, and that the deal takes account of all interested parties and their views, but we are not going to prescribe in this Bill, nor set out centrally, the geography that devolution should follow, because to do so would go counter to the bottom-up process that we envisage driving forward long-lasting and successful devolution in this country. I recognise my hon. Friend’s important question, but flexibility is the intention and it is what the Bill contains. We want agreement and to work with areas to deliver on their objectives.
We are open to discussing devolution proposals from all places. We have been clear that our approach is for areas to come forward with proposals that address their specific issues and opportunities. The Bill is therefore enabling legislation that will provide the legislative framework to give effect to the different aspects of devolution deals. The Government have not specified a list of functions that may be devolved, and there is good reason for that approach. It means that we can consider any area, idea or proposal. Perhaps more significantly, if we started to specify lists of functions or kinds of areas, those whose ambitions fell outside these ideas might be reluctant to come forward. The reality is that, as decades past have shown, if the man in Whitehall is asked to specify what might be devolved, the list is going to be pretty cautious.
It would not be right to restrict our ambition by taking such an approach, so I hope Opposition Front Benchers will accept and understand the position the Government are taking. In short, specifying functions or kinds of areas is simply not consistent with a genuinely bottom-up approach. We will therefore not be supporting amendment 59, or new clauses 23 and 25, and I hope hon. Members will not press them to a vote. I also hope that, with my explanations and assurances, the Committee will be able to support clause 1 and reject clause 2, accepting the consequential amendment to clause 1.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Given what has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) about rural areas being swallowed up by urban areas and the Minister’s response thereto, does it all mean that the Minister would be minded to accept at least the thrust of amendment 43, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West and would give a predominantly rural area that has already been swallowed up the right to remove itself from the arrangement?
James Wharton
I have had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, I recognise the comments that he makes and I will of course listen carefully to the further discussion today. I will set out the Government’s position on the issue in due course, but I wish to make it clear that the intention is to be consensual. We intend to listen to concerns that hon. Members might raise and try to find a way whereby we can agree across this House on what we want to deliver. I recognise the important point being made and I am sure we will discuss it further.
Amendment 4 is about mayors being a condition of devolution. We are seeking to remove the requirement that a mayor cannot be a precondition of transferring local authority or public authority functions to a combined authority, because it is wrong in principle, and it is at odds with our manifesto policy and manifesto commitment. In addition, if the requirement remained, it would mean that the deals we have made already with Greater Manchester and with Sheffield could be in jeopardy. The requirement is wrong in principle.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome this movement, but can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State has always insisted in his discussions with the combined authority and the north-east council leaders that a prerequisite for any devolution is having a mayor?
James Wharton
I think the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the direction of travel that I am setting out, but I am happy to clarify it and I hope to go on now to address his concerns.
Mr Betts
The Minister has just said that the Sheffield deal could be put at risk, but at this stage it is not a done deal—it is a proposal. If Sheffield were to say, “We actually rather like the proposal, but without the mayor,” what would be wrong with that, as the Bill stands?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman might recognise that that would then not be the agreement that has been proposed. Where there is devolution on the ambition and scale of Greater Manchester, we could not ensure that the strong, clear accountability necessary to support such devolution and provide the leadership to drive forward that area’s economy would be in place without a metro mayor. That strong, clear accountability needs to be a single point of accountability that only an elected metro mayor can provide. Where major powers and budgets have been devolved, people need to know who is responsible for decisions that can have a radical impact on their day-to-day lives. Mayoral governance for cities is a proven model that works around the world—it is indeed the model of governance for world-class cities. None of that is to say that we are imposing mayors; mayors are not being imposed anywhere. If any area has a mayor, it will be because that area, through its democratically elected representatives, has chosen to have one. The Bill specifically provides for that.
Mr Betts
The Minister is making the case that a mayor is required in order to have strong enough leadership and get things through, but in the proposed Sheffield deal only the transport functions go to the mayor—all the economic functions go to the combined authority. Is he therefore saying that there is not going to be strong leadership on these economic functions, because a mayor is not in charge of them?
James Wharton
Let me be absolutely clear about this: this Bill does not allow this Government or any future Government to impose mayors on anybody. But where we make a deal it is a two-way process, and it is the Government’s clearly stated intention for those metropolitan areas that the accountability a mayor brings is desirable and we want to see it as part of those deals.
Mr Nuttall
Does the Minister accept that Greater Manchester is not just a single city? It is an area made up of a city—
Mr Nuttall
Two cities, nowadays, and several very independently minded towns, which feel that they have been forced together into an artificial construct.
James Wharton
It is important to be clear about what the devolution we are talking about does. It takes powers that exist in Whitehall—powers that rest with public bodies—and transfers them to local decision makers. It does not affect the arrangements that are already in place for local government, which recognise differences and the communities within them. We will allow them, of course, to pool areas of policy if they wish to do so, but nothing in this legislation would allow us to compel them to do so.
In his Budget speech in July, the Chancellor was clear:
“The historic devolution that we have agreed with Greater Manchester in return for a directly elected Mayor is available to other cities that want to go down a similar path.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 329.]
All of that is reflected in our manifesto commitments to
“legislate to deliver the historic deal for Greater Manchester”
and to
“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”
Mr Kevan Jones
I would like the Minister to clarify something. As he knows, the north-east combined authority area is not a metro area, because it covers a large rural area. He said that the agreement is between the combined authority and the relevant Minister, but the insistence so far from the Secretary of State has been that the only way the north-east combined authority will get devolution is if it has an elected mayor. Is the Minister now saying that there is an option for devolution without an elected mayor for the north-east?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman will recognise from the quote by the Chancellor that I just read out that where areas want significant devolution on the scale that Greater Manchester has and where they have metropolitan areas at their heart, the Government will ask for that requirement to be part of that deal process. However, nothing in this Bill will allow the Government to compel any area to have a mayor or to have devolution. This is an enabling piece of legislation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in the deal that we are discussing with the leadership in the north-east area—all of it from his party—there is that expectation and requirement, and it is a deal on which great progress is being made.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
This point was covered very well on Second Reading. My hon. Friend may remember the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) about who is in charge. Many members of the public cannot answer the question about who is in charge of their area. If we are devolving significant powers, surely it is right and proper that we have one person who is accountable to the people in that area.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If we want to drive forward the opportunities that devolution presents, the best model to use in many areas is that of metro mayor. We will have an answer to the question: who do I ring when I want to speak to the north-east, to Tees Valley and to Manchester? We will have a person who can bring together those opportunities and drive the potential that this devolution agenda delivers.
Ben Howlett
I thank my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for the reassurance that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that we in the west of England will not have a mayor forced on us. Does he not agree that having that clause taken out needs to be looked at on Report?
James Wharton
Perhaps I need to be clearer about the impact of this clause. This clause would put at risk some of those deals already done. It would leave them open to legal challenge and put in jeopardy the devolution packages that those areas expect, the deals they have made with Government and the commitments that we made in our manifesto. I am in danger of repeating myself excessively, but I will again point out that no area can have a mayor or devolution forced upon it. This is enabling legislation that allows us to deliver our devolution obligations.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Is the Minister saying that he has entered into draft deals for which he has no legal powers and for which the Bill as presented on Second Reading gives him no powers? Is he also saying that without driving this amendment through this afternoon, he would not have had the legal powers to enter into the deals that he has done so far?
James Wharton
What I am saying is that, if this amendment is not made, deals with areas including Greater Manchester and the Sheffield city region would potentially be at risk; they would be open to legal challenge. The whole point of this Bill is to enable us to deliver on the deals that we are making with areas. That is the whole reason why we need this legislation. If we were able to deliver those deals without it, we would not be here debating it in this Committee today. I do not think that the loss of those deals is an outcome that many would wish to see. I therefore commend to the Committee the amendments that we need to make to ensure that we can deliver on our manifesto commitments and on those deals that we have made.
I now wish to consider amendment 51, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove and for Shipley (Philip Davies). It provides that a combined authority mayor can be established only after a referendum. Our manifesto commitment states that we will
“devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors.”
We are committed to cities making the choice for a mayor, but, as I have made clear, a mayor will not be imposed anywhere. This principle of choice is a principle which I am confident that my hon. Friends accept.
James Wharton
If the hon. Lady will let me make a little progress, I will give way to her soon. I know that she has been keen to get in.
In the traditions of our democracy—the traditions of a representative democracy that go back to the days of Edmund Burke if not before—it would be curious if that choice could not be made by those elected at the ballot box by the people of the city to represent them. That is the approach that is provided for in the Bill. The Bill specifically provides that each council in the area must consent to any order establishing a combined authority mayor. There is a good precedent for such an approach. A council can decide to establish a directly elected mayor for its area now. It was Liverpool City Council, which, in 2012, decided that Liverpool should have a directly elected mayor. If one council can decide to have an elected mayor, why cannot a group of councils decide to have a mayor over their combined area?
To require a referendum to be the only way for a combined authority to have a mayor would seem not fully to recognise the role that those democratically elected can legitimately have. The choice at root, as Greater Manchester has shown—
William Wragg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He is proceeding with great courtesy, erudition and charm in this debate. Just on that point of the referendum in Greater Manchester, there were constituent parts of Greater Manchester that had referendums in 2012 on whether to have directly mayors and they rejected them. In part, that is my motivation for the amendment.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He gives me the opportunity to clarify again the difference between the local authority mayors, of whom we have talked before, who took powers up and away from people, and the metro mayors who take powers down towards people and away from central Government and public bodies. It is an important distinction and one that is at the heart of the difference that explains the approach the Government are taking to my hon. Friend’s concerns.
As Greater Manchester has shown, the choice at root is whether or not to have wide-ranging devolution. If the choice is for devolution, it goes without saying that there must be accountability arrangements commensurately strong for the scale of powers being devolved. Holding a referendum on the narrow question of whether there should be a mayor risks not fully recognising the choice that is to be made. In short, our democratic traditions do not demand the approach provided for in amendment 51. Indeed, the approach we have in the Bill of the choice for a combined authority mayor being made by councils is exactly the same approach that is open to councils for choosing a local authority mayor—accepting the difference that I have already explained in my comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove about these powers coming down from central Government. Accordingly, I hope that this amendment will be withdrawn.
Karin Smyth
I wish to come back later to make some other points, but let me raise now this issue of two-way opportunity and choice for local people, which I very much welcome. Bristol does not have the opportunity to reverse the decision it made in 2012, which is a fundamental principle of democracy and accountability. I am interested to hear whether the Minister will support clause 21, which has come from the Lords.
James Wharton
I hear what the hon. Lady says and that issue will be given a great deal of consideration. I will comment on the matter later in the course of the Committee, but the message has been heard loud and clear by Government. As I said in my opening remarks, we are keen to find consensus where we can on this agenda. I hope that at this stage, subject to the debate that might take place, that will sufficiently reassure the hon. Lady so that she can await those discussions in due course.
James Wharton
I cannot give way to my hon. Friend, because I must make some progress. I apologise to him, but there will be opportunity throughout today to discuss this matter.
I doubt that it would be right to accept this amendment, but we shall of course listen carefully to the debate, both on this amendment and on the amendments of my hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove and for Shipley. We recognise the strength of feeling and we want to find a way to ensure the broadest possible support for this legislation. I have put on record the Government’s views and the concerns that we have to the proposed approach, but we will of course listen to what is said later on today.
Amendment 46, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), seeks to prevent the ceremonial county of Somerset— the administrative county of Somerset and also the two unitary authorities of Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset—from adopting arrangements that include a mayor for the area of the combined authority. There are two difficulties with the amendment. I suspect that my hon. Friend will speak to the amendment later, and I will listen intently to the comments that he makes. The first is that it would single out Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset and North Somerset as some kind of special case.
James Wharton
Although those places are indeed special, the amendment is completely at odds with the generic, enabling provisions of the Bill. To recognise the unique character of an area is not to seek to exclude it from the enabling provisions. Rather, it is through those enabling provisions that we can recognise the particular character of Somerset along with the particular character of any other area. That is at the heart of the Government’s flexible approach—the bottom-up approach—of delivering devolution that is bespoke to the areas that want it.
Secondly, the amendment would rule out the Somerset authorities from having the option of adopting one of the models for strong and transparent governance that is available. Clause 3 enables an area to adopt the model of a combined authority mayor, but it will be for the councils themselves to decide whether they wish to move to this form of governance. We will not impose devolution on anyone, but it should be possible for everyone. I look to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset to withdraw his amendment, but I will listen with interest to the comments that he makes.
I also want to comment on amendments 53 and 56, which are tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Amendment 53 seeks to extend the Secretary of State’s powers under the new section 107A, so that in addition to providing by order for there to be a mayor for a combined authority area, provision could be made in certain circumstances, following a proposal from the constituent authorities, for some other governance and accountability structures for the combined authority area. Amendment 56 seeks to provide that, where such other governance structure has been provided, the combined authority would be a major precepting authority, as it would be if there were a mayor for the combined authority area.
In general, I have some sympathy with what might be seen as the underlying idea of those amendments, which is to introduce some greater flexibility, but in this case I am not persuaded that this is the right approach. The amendments risk being seen as an attempt to hold out the possibility of some governance arrangement that does not have that sharp single point of accountability. Although we have been clear that the Government wish to impose that accountability on no one, it will be a requirement for those deals that are similar in their scope and ambition to that with Greater Manchester.
Mr Graham Allen
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. May I take him back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) about making arrangements that can be flexible and allow evolution, particularly of the larger areas that will be devolved? I know that Core Cities are particularly interested in this concept. It could be the equivalent of a pre-nup agreement with a smaller authority before it comes into full membership, almost like with the EU where there is a trial period, to see whether people get on before taking it forward as consenting authorities.
James Wharton
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s thoughts and recognise the intention behind the amendment. I will listen carefully to his comments later and will look to find consensus where we can to ensure that the safeguards that all Members want to see are included while ensuring that we deliver on this agenda and on the manifesto pledge made by my party at the election, only six months ago.
I am conscious that a number of hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall try to move through some of the other amendments reasonably quickly. Amendment 57 is tabled by the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues and requests that a gender balance must be considered when the mayor appoints a deputy. I gently remind those on the shadow Front Bench that this approach was considered for the leadership of their party and rejected. The mayor, who will have a democratic mandate to govern, needs to be able to determine who will best assist him or her in delivering on the promises they have made to voters. That person should be the best person, regardless of gender, and I asked that the amendment is withdrawn.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On the question of dissolving a combined authority, will not the difficulty always be that pooling and sharing arrangements will have been put in place and borrowing arrangements will have been made that a constituent authority might not easily be able to exit? That would make the long-term stability of the combined authority very uncertain were the amendment to be passed.
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman makes a salient and important point. The Government will not support the amendment for that very reason, but I will listen carefully to the speeches that are made because it is important that we address concerns to the fullest extent to which we are able without attracting from the intention of the Bill and the intention of the Government to deliver on our agenda.
Clause 3 provides flexibility to enable a single local authority to leave, in line with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made, if it does not wish to continue to be part of a combined authority. A council can also leave a combined authority once a mayor has been elected for the area of a combined authority without the need for the combined authority to be dissolved and reformed, using exactly the same process as is used to establish such an authority of undertaking a governance review demonstrating that the change would improve the exercise of functions. In addition, a council that wishes to leave a combined authority can do so if it obtains consent from the other constituent councils of the combined authority, and if there is one, the mayor. Again, I will listen carefully to the comments of hon. Members with a view to finding a position that can get broad agreement across the House as the Bill makes progress.
Amendment 39 is tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). It applies to circumstances in which a combined authority is proposed and seeks to require that no order can be made for a combined authority unless local government electors have been consulted on replacing the existing county councils and district councils with unitary authorities. That moves away from the flexibility we want to be to deliver and puts conditions on deals that we might want to make but that we do not necessarily want to impose. Again, I will listen very carefully to my hon. Friend’s comments later on in today’s discussions.
Mr Betts
Will the Minister also listen to the problem in the districts in north Nottinghamshire and north Derbyshire? They are part of the Sheffield city region for economic purposes under the proposed deal but not for transport purposes, because in order to come under the mayor’s jurisdiction they need the permission of the county. Equally, the districts have to give their permission to join a county combined authority. This is a really complicated situation that needs resolution with Government help.
James Wharton
We will consider both the specific situation that the hon. Gentleman raises and more generally its application to our policy direction. I will listen carefully to the comments made in the rest of today’s debate.
Amendment 18 to 22, 27 and 28 are technical and simply provide that where the Secretary of State has powers in relation to electoral matters, those powers may also be exercised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The provisions are similar to those in other legislation regarding local electoral matters, such as the election of mayors under the Local Government Act 2000, and ensure that the rules made on the election conduct of elections are consistent over wider electoral landscape. I hope that the explanation I have been to give in the time available adequately and sufficiently explains the Government’s position. I reiterate our commitment to listen to the comments of hon. Members and to build as broad a consensus as we can.
Mr Betts
I want to make a very few points, because I know that other Members want to speak, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who has tabled a number of amendments and has a long track record of constructive engagement in matters of constitutional reform and devolution of which I am very supportive. He did excellent work on that in the last Parliament.
My first point is about the question of elected mayors and takes me back to the point I made on Second Reading. If the Government are committed to considering bespoke arrangements on devolution for particular parts of our country and considering requests from combined authorities—groups of authorities voluntarily coming together and proposing what they want to see devolved—why do we need one element of imposition in all this? Why do we need one element that says that they can have the powers they come up with providing that agreement is reached but that they must exercise them in a particular way and that there is no ability to discuss that or come to a different view? I find it completely inconsistent with the rest of the Government’s approach.
I do not know why the Government are so insistent on having a mayor as a solution. If it was left to the combined authorities, they would come up with different arrangements. The arrangement in Sheffield has been negotiated not because the combined authorities wanted it but because they were told that they had to have it or else they could not have devolution. That is the situation.
Mr Graham Brady
I absolutely agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he share my view that the element of imposition in the proposals means that there is a danger that the devolution proposals put in place will enjoy lower levels of support than they otherwise might if communities had been properly consulted and allowed to choose their own models of governance?
Mr Betts
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Of course, the whole principle of the devolution that the Government propose, which I support, is that areas should come forward with their own ideas about what they want to see devolved. Why should they not also come forward with their own ideas about how that devolution should be exercised and about the governance arrangements for it?
Mr Kevan Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is obvious why the Government want mayors. In certain areas—in his area and in others—they are hoping to break up the powers of locally elected Labour local authorities in the hope that if they have an elected mayor, they will either get an independent or someone who claims to be independent but is actually a member of the Conservative party.
Mr Betts
I would not want to second guess the motives of the Secretary of State, so I will use my own arguments to resist what the Government are trying to do.
Apart from the inconsistency of approach, the proposals are confusing. That takes me back to the point I made in my intervention on the Minister. In the Sheffield city region the economic powers, which are important and cover skills, economic development and the infrastructure associated with it, are to be devolved to the combined authority, which will cover nine districts—four metropolitan and five non-metropolitan districts. But as I understand it from the deal, the mayor will have responsibility for just transport. So the mayor is to run transport, and the combined authority is to run economic development. The public want some consistency of approach on these matters. I do not believe that the combined authority, the district, would naturally have come forward with a proposal that broke up the responsibilities in this way.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The difference between his deal and the Greater Manchester deal is that the Greater Manchester deal is within a single metropolitan county, so functions such as police and eventually fire and rescue can also be devolved to the Mayor’s office.
Mr Betts
There is a big difference in the Manchester case. I am not arguing that Manchester should have a mayor imposed on it. If Manchester wants that, that is a matter for it, but it is different. In Sheffield we have hybrid devolution, with transport going to the mayor, but the mayor is not going to cover the nine districts. The mayor will cover only four districts—the old south Yorkshire districts—so how are people to understand the devolution deal, which has one set of governance arrangements for economic powers and skills, and another set of governance arrangements for transport, where one set of governance arrangements covers four authorities, whereas the other set covers nine?
The whole purpose of combined authorities is to bring local authorities together on a voluntary basis to cover a travel to work area—the natural economic entity—yet transport, the mayor and the associated powers will not cover the whole travel to work area of Sheffield. This is a real dog’s dinner. It is not going to work, and it is certainly not going to be understood by the public.
That leads me on to my second point. There is a problem with mayoral imposition, which in Sheffield’s case will not cover all five areas. Other districts can choose to join the arrangements for mayors if they wish. My understanding—I may be wrong—is that the districts of north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire, which are part of the Sheffield city region, are going to join the combined authority, which they are part of, for the economic powers. However, for transport powers to be devolved to those areas through a mayor, those districts will not merely have to agree, but they will have to get the county, which is the transport authority, or two counties, to agree as well. Does the county have a veto over what happens to devolution in the Sheffield city region?
This is not workable. At the same time as the Sheffield city region has a mayoral possibility, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire are looking at having a joint combined authority, which would have a mayor as well. As I understand it, the mayor can exist for the districts of north Derbyshire and north Nottinghamshire only if those districts agree to the county mayor for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire being created. So they have a veto over that. At some stage, surely, Ministers have to take some responsibility for coming forward with proposals to sort out this mess, or it will stop devolution working effectively in these areas.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
As the hon. Member for Macclesfield on the other side of the Pennines, I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and enjoy working with him on the all-party parliamentary group on national parks. Does he agree that one of the fundamental points of having a mayor is to achieve clear accountability? The lesson from London is that probably the greatest accountability the Mayor has is for transport. At a local level, surely much of the work needs to be done to bring the partnerships together. It cannot all be imposed by the Minister. It has to be about dialogue, which may sometimes be uncomfortable, at a local level as well.
Mr Betts
I understand that argument, and it would be a lot easier to accept it from the Government if there was clear accountability and a clear understanding of what was happening, and if I had not just had to explain the situation in Sheffield city region, which has neither clarity nor accountability. Transport arrangements are to be devolved to a mayor who does not cover the whole travel to work area. That is not clarity or consistency, and it will not work.
Big issues are involved. I see the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) in his place. We had discussions in the Select Committee, of which he was a valuable member in the previous Parliament, and I know he has clear views about moving towards unitaries if we are to have a combined authority that works. Otherwise we will have districts, counties and combined authorities, as well as parishes in some areas. I am not sure that that amounts to easy-to-understand government. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has raised some interesting issues. I am not sure about his solution, but there is a problem, for which Ministers have to accept some responsibility.
I realise that others wish to speak. On the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, I hope the Government will listen to the idea of some sort of independent body to look at these issues. That was discussed by our Select Committee last time. If there is genuine disagreement between central Government and local government, an independent body could bring the two sides together and produce a report for Parliament to consider. In the end it is not just about Government agreeing these deals; it is about Parliament taking a view where there is disagreement. Even if Ministers are not minded to accept the amendment today, it is an interesting idea to which they might give some thought.
Finally, we cannot legislate for double devolution because in the end, devolution has to allow areas to do things their own way, but there is a role for Ministers, parliamentarians and the LGA to get the message across that devolution does not stop at the town hall door. Where powers are devolved to local authorities, it is for them to move those powers into communities and to engage with communities in a positive way to make devolution happen even further down the line.
Nigel Mills
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I shall speak to amendment 39 in my name. The purpose of the amendment is not to divide the Committee, but to ask how these devolution deals will work in areas that have a partly unitary and partly two tier authority structure. It is not clear that that is an effective or desirable situation for various reasons.
The reason for proposing a consultation with local people is that I am not sure there will be much enthusiasm among local people to pay for three different tiers of local government. It is confusing. They have no idea now which council does what. In Heanor in my constituency, for example, people elect 21 town councillors, they elect councillors to a borough council that has 45 councillors, and county councillors to a county council that has 64 members. How many more people do they need to represent them on these issues?
It is worth having an open consultation. There has been too little information and consultation with the public on the Government’s proposals, and I fear that my constituents will wake up one morning and find that they are part of an elected mayor area, together with the constituents of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who is chairing this debate, and of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), without any of those constituents realising that that was going to happen.
I am not sure many people feel there is a natural community that covers the whole of those two counties or that they wish to be part of such a local government unit. I suspect that paying for three tiers, plus town and parish councils, will not be popular, so before the proposals are implemented people ought to have a say about whether they would rather have only one of the two existing tiers. That would be a more easily understood and more cost effective local government structure.
The reason for proposing a consultation, rather than an absolute condition that devolution could not take place and elected mayors could not be introduced without moving to unitary authorities, is that I feared that the pearl-handled revolver that the previous Secretary of State still has in his desk drawer might be drawn out and fired at me in this debate if I suggested compulsory local government reorganisation. But if we are saying to local areas, “You can choose whether you want to be part of devolution and whether you want an elected mayor,” we should allow them to choose what unitaries they want. That is the next step. Three tiers of local government are not sustainable. That would focus the mind on what local government would look like and how we could best deliver these important services to our local people.
As a matter of fairness, I am not sure how a city of 300,000 people can have one leader at the table, and a county which has, say, 700,000 or 800,000 people can have nine people at the table, all with a veto and a combined authority on certain issues. If I were a member of a city council, I do not think I would see that as fair. We have a multi-level local government system which looks a bit odd. It does not help, for example, with the new homes bonus. I am not sure how business rate setting can be devolved to a two-tier area with questions over who gets to set what and who gets to keep what. There is a need to look at how local government works, and this would be the perfect time to do it. We can say to local people before they get their devolution and their elected mayor, “You tell us what you want. Do you want unitaries or do you want to keep the existing structure, with the advantages of a very local council, but with the extra cost that that brings?”
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
In Greater Manchester work on the devolution proposals is very advanced. Amendment 51, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), would put that work on hold until a referendum was held to determine whether the public supported having an elected mayor. It would also require 50% of the population to vote yes before a mayor could be introduced, which is a high bar. The turnout in the 1998 referendum on establishing the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London was 34.6%. Although the turnout in the 1997 referendum on Scottish devolution was higher, the percentage of the total electorate who voted yes was less than 50%, and the same goes for the 1997 referendum on Welsh devolution.
William Wragg
I think that the hon. Lady has mistaken the explanatory statement, which refers to the 50% threshold, for the amendment itself. Perhaps she should pay a little closer attention to the wording of the amendment, rather than the explanation provided by the office.
Ann Coffey
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that when I read an explanatory statement that says:
“The intention of this amendment is that elected mayors will be introduced only if that proposal has been endorsed, in a referendum, by 50% of the population”,
I am likely to believe the Clerks.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend will know that the Greater Manchester devolution settlement came from the bottom up, from the 10 councils of Greater Manchester, and the 10 leaders always intended to appoint an 11th member of the combined authority to act as full-time chair. The mayor merely becomes that 11th member.
Ann Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—his knowledge in this area is comprehensive.
As I was saying, 50% is a very high bar that is unlikely to be reached, so amendment 51 is, in effect, a wrecking amendment intended to stop the devolution of decision making from Whitehall to Greater Manchester. It is a kick in the teeth for the people of Greater Manchester.
The population of Greater Manchester is 2.7 million, and we have a shared sense of identity, even if, at the very minimum, it is, “We’re different from London.” Surely it is right that services to meet the needs of local people should be designed locally. Local people care about that much more than they do about esoteric arguments about organisational arrangements. Greater Manchester comprises 10 local authorities, 11 police divisions and 12 clinical commissioning groups. We have an opportunity to bring those resources together. Too often there are barriers to working together and sharing information and the delivery of services because of boundaries between councils and, for example, health agencies. The combined authority would bring together the strength, competence and experience of the existing local authorities and other agencies in Greater Manchester under the leadership of an elected mayor, which is supported by the 10 local authorities, so that the public can see the public face of that new devolved authority.
Andrew Gwynne
Of course, the point is that the Greater Manchester combined authority already exists in statute; it is a body corporate. The Bill will allow the 11th member, who chairs the combined authority, to be directly accountable to the 2.7 million people who live in Greater Manchester. Surely that is a good thing.
Ann Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a good thing. When people talk to me—and, I am sure, when they talk to him—and ask who they can go to, to them having a mayor makes perfect sense.
Of course, there are outstanding issues with regard to health, but there is nothing in the Bill that will take away from the people of Manchester the right to national health services enjoyed by people elsewhere. The problem in Greater Manchester is the fragmentation of health, so it is good that these proposals will help reduce the number of commissioning organisations and allow providers to work together in a more collaborative way for the benefit of local people. However, we need a funding settlement that gives greater flexibility in developing high-quality health and social care services in the community across Greater Manchester as an alternative to hospital admissions, and at the moment it is difficult for each clinical commissioning group to free up resources in order to do that. Without that investment, the demand for expensive hospital care will continue. The authority cannot simply be a bank that hands out money under the current funding arrangements.
There has been a lot of talk about accountability, but in my experience accountability is at its best when well-informed elected representatives, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), demand answers and are willing to make their case loudly and publicly. No complexity in the arrangements for governance can take the place of that, and that is the accountability that the public expect us to ask for.
Last year I did some work looking into child sexual exploitation across Greater Manchester, at the request of the police and crime commissioner, Tony Lloyd, and following that I published my report “Real Voices” last October. Talking to children at risk of child sexual exploitation, it is absolutely clear that they do not observe local government boundaries, health boundaries or police boundaries, and neither do their predators. The digital age has redefined boundaries. A lot of progress on that has already been made across Greater Manchester. In particular, I want to congratulate Project Phoenix, a cross-boundary, multi-agency response to child sexual exploitation across the whole of Greater Manchester, which is working to ensure that child victims receive the same standard of response regardless of where they live. It has also initiated a very successful “It’s not okay” campaign to build public awareness of child sexual exploitation and help young people recognise when they are being groomed. It is clear that work on this crucial agenda will be enhanced by more devolution powers for Greater Manchester. We must overcome the silos and boundaries that prevent people working together to protect children from abuse.
Amendment 51, if passed, would be a kick in the teeth for the people of Greater Manchester and their children, who have felt for years that their voices have been ignored by Whitehall and Westminster. Devolution and the creation of a mayor offer the opportunity to the people of Greater Manchester to develop services that reflect their priorities and needs. We should take that opportunity and be positive about the opportunities we are being offered.
Mr Brady
I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this brief debate in Committee. We have already had some useful exchanges, and my hon. Friend the Minister has, as usual, been courteous and helpful—I am sure that he will be even more helpful before the end of our proceedings.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) spoke with obvious passion, and we all very much appreciate the work she did on child sexual exploitation, but I want to pick up on the point she made right at the end of her speech, despite my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) making it clear that amendment 51 would require a simple majority in the referendum, whatever the explanatory statement might say. I think that she can relax about the prospect of any kick in the teeth for local people.
Ann Coffey
I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is very knowledgeable in these matters, that it is the Member who writes the explanatory statement for an amendment, not the Clerks.
Mr Brady
I should not speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove in this instance, although I will put on the record my gratitude to the Clerks for their assistance in drafting the amendments and explanatory statements that stand in my name. I will speak briefly to amendments 42, 43 and 44, allude to amendment 51—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove will speak to it in due course—and comment on Government amendment 4.
Mr Nuttall
I want to try to clarify the point about the 50% threshold. In a referendum in which the electorate vote either yes or no, what we are trying to make clear is that it would have to have the support of over 50% of the people voting in the referendum. It is no more complicated than that.
Mr Brady
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who expresses the matter clearly and succinctly.
We have already shed light on a number of important things. I particularly welcome the Minister’s reassurance, which is important to those of us who are evangelists for devolution for the Greater Manchester area, that in due course, when it has proved as successful as we all hope it will be, some of the neighbouring authorities such as Cheshire East Council—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) here—might apply to be part of the journey to this great new world on which we are embarking. I am sure that he would not be alone in wishing to come and join us.
David Rutley
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is indeed a great friend. Like him, I would absolutely love to see devolution succeed in Greater Manchester, in partnership with authorities in the counties around it, including East Cheshire unitary authority.
Mr Brady
I am glad to have enabled my hon. Friend to speak for himself.
Amendment 42 seeks a very simple and not terribly onerous change. It would simply require the Government to report annually on how they have exercised their functions in order to demonstrate that they have not themselves exercised any of the devolved functions that rightly belong with the combined authority or the mayoral authority. There might be better ways of doing this, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will put forward his own proposals in due course. However, the underlying point is that although the Government have been very pleased to place obligations on local authorities through the process of forming agreements or deals, as the Secretary of State likes to term them, very little in the Bill as it stands provides any mechanism to hold the Government to account and ensure that they fulfil their side of the bargain. I think that would be welcomed by everybody who is an evangelist for devolution—as I am sure we all are.
The Minister alluded to amendments 43 and 44, which seek to provide an easier route for exit. I happily accept that, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) said, it would be very difficult for any authority to leave a combined authority, especially a mayoral authority, at some point in the future. An enormous number of functions, agreements, financial obligations and so on will bind local authorities together, increasingly so as the years pass, and therefore no local authority would do this lightly. However, the ability to leave, should the devolution arrangements not work in practice for any one or more of the local authorities in an area, is, in some ways, the ultimate guarantee that no abuse should take place. It is particularly important that we should have such a safeguard if we reach the end of our deliberations without a referendum lock in place. If the public are not to be given the choice as to whether they want to have the elected mayor and this new structure of governance put in place over them, surely there must be a safeguard so that if, at a future date, the new arrangements were not working for the people of Trafford, Bury, Stockport or Bolton, they could seek to leave, without penalty, to find a new way of providing services and representation to the local community.
Amendment 51 calls for a referendum test to be passed. This also relates to Government amendment 4. I think the only reason the Government are so determined to overturn the amendment passed in another place which seeks to prevent conditionality—local authorities being told they are allowed to have devolution only if they accept the model of an elected mayor as a condition—is that negotiations in Greater Manchester have moved as far as they have under those conditions. It seems wrong that the Government are expecting local authorities to accept a particular model of governance as the price for this kind of devolution settlement, particularly if the Government do not have the self-confidence to consult the people and to believe in their own argument such that they could persuade the public that it is something they ought to welcome. This is the ultimate test of the Government’s arguments. The Minister is a very persuasive man, as we have seen in the Chamber today. I am certain that with his enthusiasm, charm and powers of persuasion, he could go out and sell this proposition to the people of Greater Manchester, and perhaps to those in Sheffield and other parts of the country. I wish that he would have the confidence in his own abilities that we all have.
Nigel Mills
I am sorry, obviously, to interrupt the much deserved flattery. Does my hon. Friend accept that, especially in areas outside Manchester, none of the council leaders proposing these deals has been elected on such a mandate? I do not recall that in the 2013 county council elections there was any suggestion of “Vote Labour and we’ll try and create an elected metro mayor for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire combined.” I agree with local decision making and I support these changes, but there is no local electoral mandate for them.
Mr Brady
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. In my Greater Manchester constituency, the level of knowledge of what is being proposed on changes in governance is still remarkably low. Certainly, it was not a significant feature of the general election campaign or the last local election campaign. We need to try to create a better level of knowledge and engagement.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
It is correct that no political party has so far campaigned on a metro mayor, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me of any political party, in Greater Manchester or elsewhere, that has ever campaigned on more power for central Government? In fact, the opposite has always been true. Having written Labour party manifestos several times, I know that political parties have always asked for more decentralised power.
Mr Brady
The hon. Gentleman and I agree in a distressingly large number of circumstances, and I absolutely agree with what he says now. Most of us are very firmly in favour of the devolution of powers from central Government to a level closer to the people, but we are discussing the mechanism for governance and whether people should have the right to consent to changes in that mechanism.
My hon. Friend the Minister says that this is a necessary package. Clearly, the position that the Government are seeking to establish is one where we can have these levels of devolution only with the particular type of accountability that comes through a directly elected mayor. In that case, does he not believe that that can be put to the people of Greater Manchester as a package? If the benefits of the devolution package are sufficiently good to make it an attractive proposition—if enough of the powers that the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and I would like to come closer to the people are being devolved—perhaps even those who are sceptical about the elected mayor model might accept it as a whole. I hope that the Minister, in looking at how the Government might more effectively take on board the views of local people, will consider that possibility as well as the one we have put before the Committee in amendment 51.
Mr Graham Allen
Before I begin, I should inform the Committee of the breaking news that our good friend Michael Meacher, the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton, has passed away. He was a good friend to many people in this House, and I am sure there will be an appropriate moment for us all to pay tribute to a fine parliamentarian and good friend.
This is my first opportunity to put on record my gratitude and the thanks of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who seized the opportunity to produce a magnificent report on areas in and around her constituency. I hope she will take great pleasure in the fact that the Government are now actively considering creating a What Works institution to address the sexual abuse of children. It will ensure not only that people are not victimised, but that perpetrators do not repeat their offences. I hope she feels that her work has been rewarded. I know that was not what she was looking for, but she put a great amount of energy and thought into a very difficult subject.
Turning to the Bill, I want us to think about where we might be in 2020. As I said on Second Reading, I suspect there will be at least one more devolution Bill—possibly two—so the Bill under discussion is getting the ball rolling, and as we progress I think that many of the edges to which Members on both sides of the Committee have rightly referred will be knocked off.
If the Government were minded to approve the 38 bids they have received, that would give devolution to about 80% of English local authorities. There is, therefore, not a lot more to do in terms of taking coverage further, but there is a lot more to be done in a number of specific areas. I hope that the Minister, who kindly said he would listen carefully to my remarks on my proposed amendments, will be able to use them and others to ensure that we get a practical devolution settlement that sticks and delivers for people. That cannot happen under this Bill, which is about beginning the evolution of the process. I commend the Government for that.
I am pleased to see present one colleague from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). Whatever our differences with the SNP, it is not the only party that got votes in Scotland at the general election, although one could be forgiven for sometimes thinking that that was the case. In fact, if we were operating under a proportional system, many more Labour, Conservative and Liberal Members of Parliament would be representing Scotland.
Putting that aside, we can learn a great many things from the package given by the Westminster Parliament to Scotland after intense negotiations. It could be used as a template for further English, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution. We should try, with a lot of humility, to understand how the package—which resulted from negotiations prior to the referendum—works, how it came about and how it could be applied to the rest of the UK. The answer to any argument in favour of separatism is that everybody in the United Kingdom should enjoy the maximum amount of devolution and run as much of their own affairs as possible, whether that be nationally—as in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—locally, or at the level below that of the local council.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tempting me to intervene on him. Does he share my disappointment with the draft Wales Bill, which was published with much fanfare yesterday, but which pales into insignificance when compared with the powers made available to Scotland? The ad hoc nature of devolution across the UK is inherently unstable. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and I want to go further than the Scottish settlement, but surely that is the benchmark we should be working towards.
Mr Allen
Unless there is a written settlement, there has to be an evolutionary settlement and someone has to pile in first, make the breakthrough and be a pioneer. In terms of the nations of the United Kingdom, that has been Scotland. All those who contributed to that devolved settlement—including, obviously, Donald Dewar, but also the Scottish Constitutional Convention and many others in civic society—deserve acclaim for their achievements. It is up to the rest of us, whether we are in Wales, England or Northern Ireland, to go through the gap and say, “Devolution is a great thing.” It is not an expedient to buy off Scotland, but a matter of principle that should be applied equally, and at an appropriate pace, to Wales, England and Northern Ireland.
Mr Kevan Jones
My hon. Friend talks about the principles of devolution, but one of the key factors as to whether it will work will be the proper and fair allocation of resources. This Government have a track record of devolving responsibility to local authorities while at the same time top-slicing their budgets. Is not my hon. Friend concerned that this Government, who are committed to a small state, will devolve not only responsibility without resources, but blame for cuts?
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend makes a very sound point, of which we should all be wary. We need to break that system so that we are able to go with the begging bowl and say, “We can prove we need a little bit more than anyone else,” and take as much control as possible of our own areas and resources. The amendments I have tabled seek to achieve that. The localities need their own tax base and powers. Those powers also need to be entrenched so that they cannot be sucked back by any Government—by that black hole of magnetic force we call Whitehall—unless they are able to demonstrate that their stance can be defended constitutionally, as explained in a couple of my amendments.
We need not be afraid. As well as the tremendous example of what has happened in Scotland, we have the example of what happens in every other western democracy. People in western Europe and north America take as given the independence of their locality, state, region or länder from the centre. They cannot be told what to do. The idea that the President of the United States could tell the states of New York and Georgia how they should spend their money is laughable, as is the idea that all the money in individual areas in Germany, Italy and Scandinavia should go to the centre and then be redistributed. They would think we were crazy if we proposed that system for them, yet that is the system we operate for ourselves. We are the oddities—we are the odd ones out.
We need to mature as a democracy. Sometimes I think our democracy is a bit frail and feeble, but actually it is underpowered: we do not have enough of what other nations in the western world have and we are unable to take steps forward. That is why I welcome the Bill in general, but I want to propose a number of other steps for the Minister to take either now or, perhaps more realistically, in the next devolution Bill.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between the United Kingdom and many other countries is the lack of citizen engagement with the democratic process in this country, and that if devolution is to be properly embedded and truly work, people must be engaged at grass-roots level?
Mr Allen
I do, but I gently suggest that the hon. Lady does not push me too far on that point, because she will push me into talking about what the SNP has done to local government in Scotland. One of my new clauses, which may go some way to meeting her point, would entrench the rights of authorities below local councils—neighbourhood, community and parish councils—so that they too can have clear rights.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has left the Chamber, but people do get confused if there are lots of different tiers and nobody quite knows who does what. If the parish council looks after grass verges, everybody gets to know that and those who are interested can ask questions at that level. If the electrification of the midlands main line or the refurbishment of the M1 motorway is the responsibility of the combined authority for Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Derby, people will get to understand that mechanism. We could spend a lot of time talking about combined authorities. Let us let evolution take place and let us make sure, as part of that evolution, that, if we manage to secure this immense gain and step forward of going from Whitehall to town hall, we also go to the level below the town hall.
Entrenchment sounds like a very technical, dry constitutional question, but it is what just about every other country has. Just in case we ever got an unpleasant or tyrannical central Government of any political party, a local area would have justiciable rights to say, “I’m sorry. You cannot do that. You cannot impose that on us. We are an independent unit, with just as many rights as central Government.” Those rights might include the right to raise its own money, issue bonds or whatever it may ultimately be during the next five or 10 years as we catch up with the rest of Europe. Such entrenchment cannot be obtained, however, even by a Minister as benign as this one or his colleague the Secretary of State, because it is sometimes required to be in writing and to be defended.
The object of my new clause 1 is to defend the progress that the Minister and the Secretary of State are trying to make so that there cannot be changes unless there is consent. There are many ways of doing that. One way is to have a super-majority in the House. If someone came along and tried to terminate the life of a Parliament, just at the whim of the Executive, it could not now be done because there has to be a super-majority. Perhaps local government is as important as the question of how long the life of a Parliament is. Another way would be to have a check and balance, as it were, perhaps with local government itself—with the LGA, or any other institutional arrangement—being able to say, “No. We’re not yet prepared to relinquish that power, so we stand where we are.” It could also be defended behind the Parliament Act 1911, which says that the second Chamber shall not stick its nose into any affairs other than—this is the only one at the moment—five-year Parliaments. We could add that it shall also defend the rights of local government and its independence from the centre. Putting such constitutional or democratic blocks in the way of an erosion of some of the very good work that the Government are doing in the Bill is very important in my opinion. I hope that that will be addressed, if not only this occasion, then in a future Bill.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The whole concept of entrenchment in legislation is very interesting, but it is very difficult without a written constitution. Would the hon. Gentleman like to move to a written constitution to be able to entrench such powers?
Mr Allen
I would jump at the possibility of moving to a written constitution, because that would make it knowledge we could share with every schoolboy and schoolgirl, rather than having parliamentary archaeologists, such as the hon. Gentleman, tell us the right interpretation of a particular view. We could, however, have a halfway house; sadly, it does not necessarily require a written constitution. There are the means of a super-majority, a self-denying ordinance, a lock by an external body—in the case of local government, I have suggested it could be the LGA—or the 1911 Act. It is absolutely possible: every other western democracy has done it, and there is nothing in the parliamentary water that robs us of the wit to do something comparable.
I tabled new clause 13 on double devolution. The Minister has been very generous about considering how we can safeguard devolution pressed down below town halls to the localities. The new clause suggests that the Government should make a regular statement to talk through and enable Parliament to debate what happens when powers are given to town halls and to ask whether the powers get down to the people who really need them. There may be many powers that appropriately stop with the town hall or the combined authority. Equally, however, many others would be administered much better at a lower level. It is not about doing that for everything or forcing people into it, but about doing only what is appropriate. That is the way to follow this through and to continue the debate. This is not about trying to prevent the Government from doing what they are doing, but to facilitate the next stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) talked about the need for public consultation and involving the public. It is absolutely imperative to take the public with us on this journey. It should not be seen just as a technical exercise. We should involve them by saying, “Look, we’ve had our devolution for a year or so. Let’s have a little look at what we’ve managed to do so far. What do people outside Government or Parliament think we could do better?” It would be very healthy to have such dialogue, promoted by the Government through a statement to the House or to the general public, and it would help us to move to the next stage of the evolution of devolution, particularly in England.
The Minister referred courteously to my new clause 18, so I will not go over the ground again in relation to parliamentary oversight. Let me, however, mention the other part of the new clause, which is about having an independent body to look at how devolution is going. This is comparable to my point about double devolution. However, they constitute it, the Government could create an arm’s length authority to say, “There are a lot of problems around x, or whatever it may be.” My hon. Friend mentioned cross-border difficulties, where one bit of territory is contested by more than one combined authority or metro mayor. Other colleagues spoke about powers being in one place, but not being relevant to another part of an authority. Many others have spoken about mayoralty.
An independent body—without the vested interests we sometimes have to have in Parliament, sadly—should look at this and say, “Well done, the Government. You’ve got us to first base, but if you want to get to second base, we think you should have a look at these things.” Again, that is not about binding Parliament or telling Ministers what to do, but about allowing ventilation of what is, for us, the very novel concept of devolution and the question of how it can work better.
I have already put a number of other points on the record. Like the Minister, I have spoken to Core Cities, Key Cities, the New Local Government Network and the National Association of Local Councils. They have all raised with me concepts, as well as detailed amendments, about where this ought to go, but I will not go through them. I will not detain the Committee much longer, suffice it to say that as well as getting this Bill through the House, we must look at where we want to be in 2020 and take steps to open a dialogue so that we can get to where we all want to go. We want to ensure that people control much more of their own affairs not only at United Kingdom level, but at national level, at combined authority devolved level and at the grassroots—on the ground in the localities. I hope that the Minister will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are intended and continue such a dialogue over the coming years.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
Order. I want to call the Front Benchers at about 2.55 pm. There are still six or more Members who wish to speak, so unless Members keep their contributions below five minutes, we will not get through them all. I would therefore appreciate the co-operation of the Committee.
James Wharton
Given that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has informed the Committee of the sad news of the death of Michael Meacher, I think it is appropriate for me to put it on the record that the Government’s thoughts are, of course, with those who were close to him and who will be feeling pain at this time. As someone who was in this House for longer than I have been on this earth, he made a very significant contribution to this place and one that we should recognise.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I add to what the Minister has just said? In my dealings with Mr Meacher in this House, he never put his strongly held political views above his fundamental good manners and civilisation. He was always the most decent man to talk to, even though I doubt there was a single subject of any political importance on which we agreed. He is a loss to this Chamber.
I will come on to my amendment 46, which would exempt Somerset, God’s own county, from the provisions on having a mayor. The Minister suggested that Somerset was not exceptional. I think that that was a momentary lapse because he is not only a most honourable gentleman, but somebody of fundamental good nature and wisdom. We will forgive him such a momentary mental lapse on this occasion and put it down to the wet weather or something like that.
The Government are giving fine and good undertakings. I will quote briefly from the Secretary of State on Second Reading:
“It is a fundamental tenet of this Bill, in contrast to other reforms debated over many years, that it does not give me or any of my ministerial colleagues the power to impose any arrangement on any local authority.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 326-327.]
My hon. Friend the Minister has reiterated those undertakings. They are excellent and encouraging, and they provide a solid basis for proceeding. Unfortunately, there is a “but” coming.
Everything I hear from local councillors in North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset tells me that they are having their arms twisted. We are seeing a velvet glove today—a finely manufactured velvet glove of the highest quality velvet. Behind it, however, is a firm iron fist that expresses the Government’s will that things should go in a certain way. I encourage the Government, through my amendment, to make the background noises—the conversations in smoke-filled rooms—match the fine words that we are hearing in this House.
And so I come to why I want to exempt Somerset. Well, there is history—there is always history! I will start, as always, with Alfred the Great. If we go all the way back to 879, Bristol was in Mercia and Somerset in Wessex. One of those two kingdoms was completely under the Danes—that was obviously the Gloucestershire bit. The borderline between the two has been there for over 1,000 years. There is a strongly embedded history in Somerset and, indeed, in Bristol which means that they see themselves as independent, distinct units.
It is important that the Government go with the grain of communities that have built up over generations, centuries and, in this case, even a millennium, rather than create new administrative regions that mean very little to people. Most people have no interest in the title of their council. They have an interest in where their home is. Their home may relate to a great city, to a great county or to a village, a county and the country. The use of power needs to go with that. Therefore, devolution from the United Kingdom to an administrative body with which people do not have sympathy and about which they do not have a feeling makes things no better. People have a loyalty to the nation and a loyalty to their locality, but if interspersed between them is some random political agglomeration that came about through a sudden burst of enthusiasm by a Government, people have no association with that, no enthusiasm for it and no loyalty for the institution.
Of course, this has been tried before. This is my second and perhaps more important appeal to history in the context of Somerset, particularly in relation to North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset. We were part of a much disliked, most unsuccessful, high-cost organisation called Avon. It is known to the cognoscenti as CUBA—the county that used to be Avon. The name CUBA was appropriate because it was almost as left-wing as Mr Castro in its approach to government and it was exceptionally expensive. It had one of the highest increases in rates in the 1980s. It was felt by people in the rural areas that it was run for the benefit of Bristol, with the cost being borne by people in rural areas.
We continue to see that in Avon and Somerset police, the cost of which is borne by the rural areas, even though—I am sorry to say this with the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) sitting opposite me—most of the crime is in Bristol. Inevitably, being an inner city, Bristol has more drug dealing, more armed crime and more social disorder than Nempnett Thrubwell and other villages in my constituency, which are bastions of law-abiding civility.
Karin Smyth
I was not going to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is maligning the great city of Bristol, which draws in people from North East Somerset with its great employment and cultural opportunities. Indeed, that causes some great problems in my constituency in respect of travel arrangements and so on, but we are grateful to have his constituents coming to work in the city. Perhaps we can have a more balanced discussion.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, because it brilliantly encapsulates what I want to say, which is that Bristol is a fantastic city, a noble city, a city of fine history, but it is not Somerset. What I want to do is to protect Somerset from encroachment by Bristol. I want Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that the people of Somerset are not subjected to any pressure, any force or any arm twisting to be ruled from Bristol or to subsidise Bristol. I would rather, and I know the people of Somerset would rather, see our money spent through decisions made in Whitehall than decisions made in Bristol. We see the unity of the nation and we see the history of our county; what we do not see is a random administrative area.
I hope that the Minister can give me one commitment, which is that if we do not sign up to these things and if we retain our independence and freedom of manoeuvre, the Government institutions that spend money, such as Highways England, will continue to spend money—that it will not mean any loss of money, but will merely be about who decides how it is spent. For once, I am trusting the man in Whitehall against the man in red trousers in Bristol.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister made three startling claims in his opening remarks. He said that mayors will not be imposed, that devolution settlements will not be imposed and that the Government will seek consensus on such settlements. That is just not what the Government are doing.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) talked of an iron fist in a velvet glove. What we have here is complete doublespeak. The portrayal of the situation by the Minister and others is that these decisions will somehow be taken in local areas. At the same time, the North East combined authority is being told that it will get devolution, but that a non-negotiable condition of that is to have a mayor. When councillors meet the Secretary of State and ask him why they need a mayor, he says that it is because the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires it as a prerequisite of devolution. The Conservative party and its friends in the north-east state that when the North East combined authority’s leaders ask sensible questions about why other areas have devolution without a mayor, or legitimate questions about how the mayor will work in practice, they are somehow being difficult, and that is why amendment 51 is so important. Throughout this entire exercise we are forgetting one important group of people—those who elect us and who are served by local councils and local areas.
Last week on Second Reading the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) claimed that the Secretary of State was being a Chamberlain-style reformer. No, he is not, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) when he says that we will end up with a complete dog’s breakfast.
There has been no great commission. When the Conservative party restyled local government in the 1970s we had the Redcliffe-Maud report, and in the ’60s—I think it went over into the Heath Government—the Crowther commission considered devolution. At least we are considering the issue and have some consistency to our approach, but that is because this Bill has nothing to do with real devolution and is about the Chancellor’s political control. He is seeking to ensure that the cuts required by his ideal of a small-state Britain can be devolved to local authorities or mayors, so that when people ask, “Why do you have to make these cuts?”, he will stand back and say, “It is nothing to do with me. It is down to your local mayor, and you decide.”
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The North East LEP does not really hang together cohesively in its geography. It extends from south of Barnard Castle that borders North Yorkshire, right up to the Scottish border at Berwick-upon-Tweed—a considerable distance. This is not some sort of city region; it is an urban heart with a considerable rural hinterland. It does not hang together well from a business perspective.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In 2010 the Government were completely against regions, but now they have recreated a region in the northern LEP area. What he says is right—the area is very diverse and has some difficult issues regarding population, services, and other things that are delivered.
This is slightly different from when we had mayors for local authority areas. The Minister said that we need elected mayors because this is about devolving power from Whitehall to the regions, and that is why the approach needs to be different. I am sorry but—I make no bones about this—in 2004 I remember the Labour Government’s proposals for regional government in the north-east. Was it right for local people to have a say in whether the north-east had an extra tier of regional government? Yes, I think it was, and people overwhelmingly rejected it. I am not sure whether the Minister was around then, but many Conservatives in the north-east who now support him argued vigorously for the idea that it was right for people to have a say in the future governance of their region. Indeed, I think that some of the people who funded his election campaign also funded the no campaign in the north-east.
If it was good enough then, and the Conservative party and its backers in the north-east argued vigorously for why we should allow people to have a say, why now will they not allow people to have a say over a new tier of regional government? That is inconsistent, and it is interesting that the same voices that once argued vociferously against regional government in the north-east have remained completely quiet now that a Conservative Government are preparing to impose a system on the north-east without giving local people a say.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) on his amendment, and I hear what people are saying about Manchester. I will not get into Manchester politics, but council leaders should be careful. If we have learned one thing in the past few years, it is that people cannot be taken for granted. If we are to listen to and represent people, it is important at least to give them a say in what we do. This is a major issue, given the change to how the country will be governed, and excluding people in the north-east and not giving them a voice in their future is completely wrong. The Government need to explain why they are afraid to allow people in the north-east to have a say in the future governance of their region.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
Order. I remind hon. Members that I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers not much later than 2.55 pm.
William Wragg
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby.
I pay a warm tribute to the Minister and the Secretary of State for their approach to this Bill and the constructive dialogue that they have had with—dare I say it?—the caucus of Greater Manchester MPs, including two who are sitting next to me. The Minister warmed my heart by quoting Edmund Burke earlier. I do not know how Burke’s “Reflections on the Revolution in France” compare with my Second Reading speech, “William Wragg’s reflections on Devolution in Greater Manchester”, although in some respects my speech was probably equally as intemperate as the fiery language that Burke deployed against the French revolution. If I at all offended the Minister with my remarks on Second Reading, I wish to atone for that entirely.
The point about amendment 51 is no different to the point that I made last week about having confidence in the arguments and trusting the people to win them over. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) expanded on the qualities of the Minister and the Front-Bench team in persuading and engaging with the public, and if they were to test this issue with a referendum in Greater Manchester, they might be pleasantly surprised with the result.
My neighbour, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), has recently left the Chamber, but I pay tribute to her work on child sexual exploitation. I was pleased to serve on one of the sub-committees of Stockport Council which took evidence from her. I say gently, however, that I would distance myself from any temptation to link the topic on which she has done a great deal of work with whether an elected mayor would impact on that, as I think it is a slightly spurious argument.
As a former teacher I should perhaps apologise to the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who took issue with how the explanatory statement was drafted, and I hold my hands up as that was due to a lax approach on my part. There was never intended to be threshold on which 50% of the population would have to agree. Amendment 51 is supported by a growing list of colleagues, and it simply asks that fundamental changes to local government and the governance of my constituency are put to the test at a referendum, so that they can be endorsed and back the Government’s welcome programme of devolution.
Karin Smyth
I am pleased—along with my neighbour the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—to give the Committee a bit of respite from the subject of Manchester and to talk a bit about Bristol instead. Bristol has been a trailblazer for devolution and, in 2012, it was the only city to choose to have an elected mayor when the question was put in a referendum. I am a keen supporter of devolution and of transferring power closest to the people it affects, and I was proud to make my maiden speech on that subject. I am perhaps not as much of an evangelist as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), but I am keen for devolution to happen.
Let me pick up on a unique issue which means that the people of Bristol do not share the same democratic rights as the rest of the country. The Bill started in the House of Lords, where Baroness Janke moved an amendment, now clause 21, which, if passed, would give Bristolians the right, after 10 years, to reverse, if they so wished, the decision we made in 2010 to have an elected mayor to govern our city. If the model is not fit in 10 years, we would like the opportunity to change it. By that time, citizens will have had ample opportunity to assess the value or otherwise of the current model, how it works in Bristol and, crucially, with the changing situation, how it would work across—I will not use the word CUBA, or indeed Avon—the wider Bristol area and with our neighbours in a combined authority.
This is not about personalities or whether we like or dislike the current mayor or would prefer a different person in office; it is about the system that works best for us in the city region. It is not about party politics either, because all the major political parties on the city council agree and supported a joint motion to that effect. I am very grateful to Baroness Janke, a Liberal Democrat peer, who did a lot of work in shaping and gaining support for the clause when it was in the House of Lords. It is about democracy. It is about whether we should have a voice and a new model. We should now be given that say. In an era when we are supposed to be seeing an increase in devolution and empowerment, it feels wrong that we as Bristolians should have to go through a long and tortuous legislation-making process to know whether we have the right to determine the way our city is governed. This clause would allow us to do that much more easily.
I hope the Government are able to support that provision, and give me and the people of Bristol a greater say in how this works for us in the future.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
Turning to another aspect of devolution, I would like to talk about the importance of health devolution. I obviously welcome the Government’s devolution revolution, which the Bill will help to deliver. In London, the Mayor has been campaigning for greater fiscal devolution and I know he applauds the recent announcement on business rate reform, as this will benefit our capital.
The devolution revolution that the Bill champions will ensure that Greater Manchester becomes the first English region to have full control of its health spending. However, as the Minister will be aware, London government has also been exploring how a similar model could work in the capital. As we all know, health is no respecter of ward or council boundaries. People live in one area and work in another, and may receive treatment for complex conditions in more than one area. That is why it is so important, in cities such as London and others that have been instanced today, that it should be viewed as a whole.
For a patient receiving many different treatments, it is far more effective for their care to be under one authority. As the previous deputy Mayor of London watching over this brief, I chaired many cross-London forums where councils and health authorities have come together to share resources and work together for better outcomes instead of being able to afford a smaller service in their locality. I would therefore argue that London, like Manchester, should explore ways to reform health and care provision, including a rebalancing towards prevention, early intervention, and proactive personal care and support. The aim should be to reduce hospitalisation, invest more in primary care, and integrate planning and decision-making for both the health and care services. Inevitably, there needs to be a review of NHS properties, including underused facilities, so that new integrated care centres can be opened and we have a more efficient use of the health estate.
There is agreement among London partners that the scale and complexity of health and care issues in London means that a model of reform should include actions at local, sub-regional and pan-London level. As part of their submission to the comprehensive spending review, London government made the case for greater devolution over health and social care. In the interests of brevity as we are short of time, I shall reduce the list substantially and just mention public health powers, including regulatory and fiscal interventions; multi-year allocations of NHS and local authority funding on a borough footprint; and London’s share of national NHS transformation funding.
As the Minister will know, representatives from the Greater London Authority, London Councils, NHS England, the London office of clinical commissioning groups and Public Health England are developing a memorandum of understanding to progress this work and to look at the powers that could and should be devolved to London. The recent London Health Commission report also advocated a London health commissioner, who could focus on the particular concerns of our growing city with its transient population. In London, we see diseases that many of us thought had died out, such as tuberculosis and rickets. They are often seen in people who were born or have grown up elsewhere, bringing pressures to the health system in London.
I am asking the Minister to welcome the approach being taken by London and support the aspiration for the greatest possible speed of reform to improve the health of Londoners.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I start by putting on record my condolences to the family and the many friends of Michael Meacher on the very sad news we have heard this afternoon. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to pay our respects to him properly and recognise the huge contribution he made to politics, Oldham and the life of this country and this House.
Turning to the Bill, this is a very exciting and long-overdue agenda. The UK, and England in particular, is deeply over-centralised. This holds back our regions, cities and communities. We welcome the Bill. It is a positive step forward. It is broadly, as the Minister said, of a consensual nature and I welcome his readiness, as he expressed it earlier, to listen to this debate before coming back with his final proposals. That does not mean, however, that there are no areas where the Bill could not go further or be improved. We have heard, across the Chamber this afternoon, plenty of examples of such areas.
Listening to the Minister, it struck me that he was on his weakest ground on the issue of mayors. A number of MPs from all sides spoke very eloquently about imposed mayors. It is right that areas that want mayors should have mayors. The Greater Manchester combined authority made it absolutely clear that it supports its mayoral model and we absolutely back it on that. When that applies to other areas, that is absolutely fine: if that is the model they want, that is the model they should have. However, the Secretary of State should not be able to force mayors on areas that do not want them. He has not been at all clear on how a metropolitan area that wants to proceed with devolution but without a mayor, is able to do so. He has made the one conditional on the other.
Clause 3, as it stands, is an important clause. It ensures that mayors cannot be made a condition of devolution and we believe the Government are wrong to seek to remove this important safeguard. We will wish to test the opinion of the Committee on that.
Ian Mearns
I entirely concur with the arguments my hon. Friend is putting forward. Unfortunately, in the north-east of England, where there are seven local authorities involved in the North Eastern local enterprise partnership area, many councillors from different authorities have said to me and to colleagues, “We’ve been told it’s the only game in town” and that only with an elected mayor will the financial incentives for the LEP area be forthcoming. That is totally unfair and undemocratic.
Mr Reed
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Those constraints are being imposed by the Government on that region. It should be up to the region to choose the most appropriate model of governance as we proceed, rightly, with devolving powers down to that area.
Our new clause 21 seeks to ensure that the community is involved in any decision about the model of governance. Open engagement needs to go much further than that. Devolution deals that are shaped with the local community are more likely to have the support of the local community. Just as important, they are more likely to be better deals. The Government should not close the door on meaningful engagement that is open and transparent. The deals the Minister is making may not feel obscure to him, because he is the one inside the closed door. The people on the other side of the closed door—those on the outside—need to know what is going on and to be able to influence and shape it. If the Government really believe in devolution, why will they not devolve decisions over the appropriate form of governance so that local areas can decide for themselves? I wonder what they are afraid would happen.
James Wharton
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging discussion that none the less has retained the cross-party support for the Bill’s broad objectives that I detected on Second Reading. There are concerns about some of the amendments, and the shadow Minister has indicated his intention to test the will of the Committee on some of them, but on others I have listened carefully to, and will consider, the informed contributions of hon. Members on both sides. However, I do not think that detracts from the fundamental truth that many Members of different political views would like the devolution agenda advanced and the Bill to succeed. I am pleased that that is the case and hope that we can move forward in that vein. I want to touch on some of the specific comments made in today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who kindly described me as a benign Minister—I have been described as benign and as a velvet glove this afternoon, although at least one Member indicated from a sedentary position disagreement with at least one of those statements—is on the record as a supporter of devolution. I have discussed the issue with him in this place and outside it. I recognise that through his amendments he wants to make his position clear that devolution should go further—he anticipates that in due course it will go further—and wants to entrench elements of devolution as part of our constitutional settlement. I understand his desire to deliver that, but some of his amendments may go a little too far from the nature and scope of this Bill in respect of what he wants to deliver constitutionally. I listened carefully to what he had to say and I recognise his expertise in this area and welcome his contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about his desire to see local government reorganisation tied in with some of the devolution deals that are being delivered. We do not resile from that prospect—it is not something that we are necessarily against—but we are cautious when it comes to any proposal that would move towards imposition of that sort of reorganisation. This is going to be a consensual process—the Bill is designed to allow for that—and that is what it must be if devolution is to be a lasting settlement. I recognise the point of my hon. Friend’s amendment 39 and the consultation that he envisages within it, but I do not think that it is a step that we want to include at this time.
The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made a cogent argument about the mayor and the provisions for people to have a say about that mayor, bringing the provisions into line with requirements and legislation that exist for mayors in other areas. I recognise what she said and hope that we can find some agreement on this area that she will support. I have certainly taken note of her comments and her useful contribution today.
My hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) commented on a range of issues and a range of amendments, including on their desire for referendums. I talked about the issue in my opening remarks and set out why I think the process we are talking about here is different, with different types of mayors from those we have seen before and differences in the nature of what we are doing, with the transfer of powers down rather than up. I have listened to my hon. Friends’ comments and hope that, while we may disagree on some of the specifics, we will find broad agreement, and I look forward to having further discussions with them about how best to achieve that.
Victoria Borwick
I want to return to the point, mentioned across the Chamber, about the work that can be done collaboratively on health issues. We saw the work done on dealing with violence against women, and I want to reiterate the importance of devolving health to these larger areas.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend brings a wealth of experience to this place, and I welcome her comments and interventions. She has stated her position very clearly on the record. As we move through the course of today’s debate, we will have further opportunities to discuss the potential for health devolution. I recognise my hon. Friend’s case particularly in respect of London. The Government have the capacity to discuss and continue to discuss with the Mayor of London and London local authorities the sorts of changes they would like to see to the existing settlement. It is important to recognise my hon. Friend’s comments, to welcome the co-operative spirit in her approach and her desire for London to benefit from the sort of changes that are going to be delivered to other areas through this Bill.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I am listening to the Minister’s comments about referendums and what we discussed on Second Reading about metro mayors. In the balance of the debate, there still seems to be some confusion among the Opposition Front-Bench team about whether this is an imposition. It is not; it is an enabling process. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend pre-empts what I was coming on to say. He is, of course, absolutely right, and is perhaps more generous than I would be inclined to be when he says that there is only “some” confusion on the shadow Front-Bench. He makes an important and relevant point—one that I intend to develop in my later remarks this afternoon.
Andrew Stephenson
I appreciate the Minister’s confirmation that nothing will be imposed on any area where it is not wanted. However, in areas where it is wanted and councils want to come together to get powers devolved from Westminster to their areas, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a single person who can be held accountable by the public for those new powers and new responsibilities?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend is of course right about the importance of sharp accountability with respect to the ability of a metro mayor to drive the change that devolution presents an opportunity to deliver. This direct approach from the elected metro mayor should help to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from a process of devolution. That has been shown the world over, when many big cities with mayors deliver real improvement and success for the areas they represent. It is a proven model, one that we want to see delivered through this devolution agenda. It is also one, importantly, that will not be imposed on any area.
Mr Kevan Jones
Will the Minister just be honest? He says that he is not going to impose a system, but he well knows the alternative. Unless the north-east accepts an elected mayor, no devolution will take place. That is a take-it-or-leave-it provision; it is an imposition by any other name. The Minister should admit that he wants to impose an elected mayor on the north-east irrespective of what local people or local politicians want.
James Wharton
I listened carefully to hon. Gentleman’s contribution, and I know that he is exercised by this issue. I do not recognise the narrative that he put forward as entirely fulsome in its representation of the processes that are under way. [Interruption.] I will explain my comments thus. The Bill does not allow the Government to impose devolution or a model of devolution on any area. It allows areas to reach agreement with the Government about devolution when they see the benefits to their areas from it.
In the north-east—an area represented by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and one close to my heart and interests—we have had productive discussions with local authority leaders. Those leaders are not exclusively Conservative or even Liberal Democrat, as we are talking to Labour local authority leaders, too, and they are working with us to find the right package to deliver devolution. The Bill gives no power to impose devolution on the north-east and we would not attempt to impose a model of that devolution without the two going in tandem. The opportunity is there in the legislation for areas to ask for devolution; we can enter into discussions and deals can be made in a bespoke and bottom-up way to ensure that every area gets the right deal.
We have been clear throughout this process—it was clear in the manifesto on which this party stood at the last election—that if areas with large metropolitan city centres want a devolution package similar to the one that Greater Manchester has agreed with the Government, we would expect a metro mayor to be part of the package.
Ian Mearns
Will the Minister confirm that for the area of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership, which includes Durham, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, a £30 million investment package is on the table, but that that £30 million is available only in the eventuality of an elected mayor being accepted by the seven authorities?
James Wharton
I am happy to confirm that we are in discussions with local authority leaders in that area, but that leads me on the hon. Gentleman’s earlier comments about the geography. He has raised the point—and is perfectly entitled to do so—that this is a diverse area with rural and urban communities. I should make it clear, first, that we are talking about powers that are currently controlled in Whitehall and currently controlled nationally by public bodies and by Ministers here, and we are taking them closer to the people affected by them. Secondly, I must make it clear that we will not tell any area what its geography must be. We have left it for areas to come forward with proposals that they believe best suit the economic opportunities that exist in those areas.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Minister think it would be in the best interests of the north-east to have an elected mayor?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend raises a valid point. An elected mayor provides the focus and accountability; it means there is someone to drive the agenda forward and be accountable for it. However, we would not impose this on any area. It will be delivered only by agreement. That is true of the north-east as it is for the country as a whole, and it is true of the text in this Bill, which does not give us the power to impose. It gives us the power to make deals with the areas that want them. Devolution should be on the table for any area that wants it, but it should be imposed on no one, and that is what the Bill ensures will happen.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s very clear answer. Is it therefore the case that if an area refuses devolution, the money stays with Whitehall but can still be spent in that area, and that refusing devolution results in no financial loss?
James Wharton
Of course. Areas that choose not to be part of devolution—and it is their choice; devolution will not be imposed on anyone—will suffer no disadvantage as a result of that choice. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues to discuss any concerns that they may have about what may come to be proposed for the area that my hon. Friend represents, and also about the implications should an area choose not to be part of the process. This is not about imposition; it is about consensus, working together and co-operation.
James Wharton
I will if the hon. Gentleman is very brief. I know that he is enthusiastic to have his say.
Mr Jones
I am, because what the Minister has just said is not true. What has been said to the seven local authority leaders in the north-east is they must either accept the mayor and the devolution settlement or not receive the extra money that has been trumpeted by the Tory party in the north-east and by the Minister’s friends. The only way to get extra resources for the north-east is to accept an elected mayor and the system to which the Minister is agreeing.
James Wharton
I am not sure how much more clearly I can express myself. We will not impose devolution on any area, but any area is free to come forward and negotiate with the Government to make a deal for the delivery of devolution if it wishes. Areas that do not choose to be part of devolution will not have anything taken away from them as a consequence, and when devolution is delivered, it will be about powers coming down. Local authorities will only see powers transferred up to a metro mayor when they opt for that to happen. I think I have made myself very clear on that important point.
There is one more important point that I want to make to Opposition Front Benchers, about amendment 4. It is imperative that when the conditionality amendment that was made in the other place is put forward, we are able to deliver on our manifesto commitments, and so that we can do that, the changes that the Government have proposed today need to be made.
Mr Brady
I beg to move amendment 45, in page 4, line 18, at end add
‘provided that in each exercise of that function the mayor has the consent of each constituent part of a combined authority.’
The intention of this amendment is that any constituent part of a combined authority may veto any decision made by a mayor of a combined authority.
The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in page 4, line 18, at end insert—
‘(1A) An order under subsection (1) may only be made with the consent of the relevant combined authority; and that consent must be obtained prior to the creation of the office of mayor in the combined authority concerned’.
The intention of this amendment is that a function of a mayoral authority may only be transferred to the mayor with the consent of the relevant combined authority, which must be obtained prior to the creation of the relevant office of mayor.
Government amendments 5 to 7.
Amendment 60, in page 5, leave out lines 9 and 10.
As it stands the Bill removes the right of the Secretary of State to give borrowing powers to an elected mayor but allows for borrowing powers to be given to a combined authority. The amendment will allow borrowing powers to be given to an elected mayor.
Government amendment 8.
Clause 5 stand part.
Government amendments 23 to 25.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Amendment 41, in clause 8, page 8, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 10 and insert—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for a function of the Secretary of State that is exercisable in relation to a combined authority’s area to be a function of a mayor of a combined authority;
(2) An order under subsection (1) may not include provision about the exercise of functions currently exercised by local authorities.’
The intention of this amendment is that the only powers that can be given to a mayor of a combined authority are powers currently exercised by central government.
Amendment 54, page 8, line 27, at end insert—
‘(c) make provision for conferring on a combined authority, upon the request of that authority in relation to its area the full retention of business rates, business rate supplements, council tax, stamp duty land tax, annual tax on enveloped dwellings, capital gains property disposal tax, and multi- year finance settlements.’
This amendment will allow local authorities to retain all of their local taxation, including Business Rates and Council Tax.
Amendment 55, page 8, line 27, at end insert—
‘(c) make provision for conferring on a combined authority in relation to its area discretionary control of council tax discounts, business rate discounts and supplements, and other local fees, charges and subsidies in relation to other retained taxes.’
This amendment will allow local authorities to control all of their local taxation discounts, including those applicable to Business Rates and Council Tax.
Clause 8 stand part.
Clause 17 stand part.
Amendment 48, in clause 18, page 17, line 48, after “consents,” insert
‘and in the County of Somerset, as defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997, approved by a referendum in the local authority area’.
Government amendment 15.
Clause 18 stand part.
Clause 9 stand part.
Amendment 1, in schedule 3, page 32, line 12, after “persons” insert
‘including representatives of parish, neighbourhood, community and other councils in the area of the combined authority’.
This amendment would allow local representation from parish, neighbourhood, community and other council is to attend combined authority scrutiny meetings.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Government amendment 9.
Amendment 58, in clause 10, page 11, line 26, at end insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for conferring powers on a combined authority to set multi-year finance settlements.’
This amendment is intended to offer financial stability to city regions, allowing them long-term planning which is something not currently offered by the finance settlement or the funding of local enterprise partnerships (LEPs).
Clauses 10 to 14 stand part.
Amendment 49, in clause 15, page 14, line 43, at end insert—
‘(d) In the County of Somerset, as defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997, approved by a referendum in the local authority area.’
Clause 15 stand part.
Government amendment 10.
Amendment 2, in clause 16, page 16, line 6, at end insert—
‘(d) the creation of a Constitutional Convention to discuss further local authority governance, functions and related democratic issues.’
This amendment creates the means by which every UK citizen can participate in a national public discussion on local devolution in the context of the wider renewal of UK democracy.
Government amendment 11.
Amendment 47, in page 16, line 11, after “apply” insert
‘and in the County of Somerset, as defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997, approved by a referendum in the local authority area’.
Amendment 50, in page 16, line 11, at end insert—
‘( ) In the case of two tier authorities, consent under section 16(3) may also be given where a majority of local authorities in the local authority area have indicated their support.’
Government amendments 12, 14 and 13.
Clause 16 stand part.
New clause 2—Subsidiarity—
‘That Subsidiarity as defined by the Maastricht Treaty 1992 Article 5(3) shall apply to the functions of national and local government.’
This new clause would build in local government’s independence by using the principle of subsidiarity found in European law.
New clause 4—Local Government Constitutional Convention—
‘(1) A convention is to be held to consider and make recommendations on the constitution of local government in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations to—
(a) appoint a day on which the convention must commence its operations,
(b) make fair and transparent rules about how the convention is to operate and how evidence is to be adduced,
(c) make further provision about the terms of reference prescribed under section (Local Government Constitutional Convention: terms of reference), and
(d) specify how those who are to be part of the convention are to be chosen in accordance with section (Local Government Constitutional Convention: composition).
(3) The date appointed under subsection (2)(a) must not be later than 31 December 2016.’
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 5—Local Government Constitutional Convention: terms of reference—
‘The convention must consider the following terms of reference—
‘(a) the devolution of legislative and fiscal competence to local authorities within the United Kingdom,
(b) the reform of the electoral system for local government,
(c) constitutional matters relating to local government to be considered in further conventions, and
(d) procedures to govern the consideration and implementation of any future constitutional reforms in relation to local government.’
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 6—Local Government Constitutional Convention: recommendations—
‘(1) The Local Government Constitutional Convention must publish recommendations within the period of one year beginning with the day appointed under section (Local Government Constitutional Convention).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay responses to each of the recommendations before each House of Parliament within six months beginning with the day on which the recommendations are published.’
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 7—Local Government Constitutional Convention: composition—
‘(1) The Local Government Constitutional Convention must be composed of representatives of the following—
(a) registered political parties within the United Kingdom,
(b) local authorities, and
(c) the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
(2) At least 50% of the members of the convention must not be employed in a role which can reasonably be considered to be political.”
This new clause creates the means by which every UK citizen can engage in a national public discussion of devolution local government, governance and electoral systems and make recommendations and receive a response from government and parliament to that national debate.
New clause 10—Housing devolution to London—
“In any enactment relating to housing, any power or duty of the Secretary of State applicable to any person or dwelling shall be exercisable in the Greater London area only by the Mayor of London, with the consent of the Greater London Assembly.’
This new clause provides for devolution to London of the Secretary of State’s housing powers.
New clause 11—Local property taxes devolution to London—
‘(1) There shall be London Consolidated Fund into which shall be paid each month a sum equivalent to the previous month’s tax receipts in relation to properties in the greater London area accruing from—
(a) the stamp duty land tax,
(b) capital transfer tax,
(c) the annual tax on enveloped dwellings, and
(d) capital gains property disposal tax.
(2) The Treasury must consult the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly on what band and rates should be applied in respect of the Greater London area for the next financial year in respect of each of the taxes mentioned in subsection (1).’
This new clause provides for devolution to London of the receipts from taxes on property and for formal consultation with the Treasury on the rates of those taxes to be set for the greater London area.
New clause 12—Local Government Financial Integrity—
‘(1) Local authorities shall be financially independent of central government, save as otherwise provided for by this section.
(2) Central government may not place any restriction on decisions by local authorities about the exercise of their financial powers.
(3) The distribution of central government funds between local authorities shall continue on the basis of existing equalisation arrangements. Distribution will continue to be based on the principle of ensuring fairness and balance between local authorities. The basis on which this distribution is carried out must continue to be made public.
(4) Each local authority shall receive from central government a guaranteed share of the annual yield of income tax, as follows. Central government must in each financial year assign to the Secretary of State responsible for the distribution of central government funds between local authorities an amount of money equivalent to the yield from ten pence in the pound of income tax. The Secretary of State must make arrangements to inform each taxpayer in England of the amount of their income tax which makes up the central government funding distributed to English local authorities as a whole.
(5) The amount of the income tax yield referred to in subsection (4) shall be renegotiated between central and local government whenever service provision responsibilities are transferred between central government and local authorities.
(6) Local authorities may raise additional sources of income in their areas in any way they wish, and with the consent of their electorates as expressed through arrangements to be determined and put in place by the local authority concerned.
(7) Local authorities shall be able to raise any loans, bonds or other financial instruments which their credit rating allows and as independent entities will be exclusively responsible for their repayment. All local authorities shall operate a balanced budget so that in any one financial year all outgoings, including interest repayments on borrowings, shall not exceed income.
(8) Central government may not cap, or in any other way limit, local authorities’ taxation powers.
(9) The financial transparency standards that apply to central government shall apply to local authorities.
(10) Central government and local authorities may contract with each other in order to pursue their own policy objectives.’
The intention of this new clause is that receipts from income tax should be assigned to the Department for Communities and Local Government who will then pass it on to councils.
New clause 14—Power to create new council tax bands—
‘(1) Section 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4) omit “The Secretary of State may by order, as regards financial years beginning on or after such date as is specified in the order” and insert “A local authority may for any future financial year”.
(3) Omit subsection (5).’
The intention of this new clause is to devolve to councils the power to create new council tax bands.
New clause 15—Abolition of referendums relating to council tax increases—
‘(1) In Part 1of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (council tax: England and Wales) after Chapter 4 omit the Chapter set out in Schedule 5 to the Localism Act 2011.
(2) Schedule 6 to the Localism Act 2011(council tax referendums: further amendments) ceases to have effect.’
The intention of this new clause is to end the council tax referendum system.
New clause 16—Effective devolution committees—
‘(1) The functions of local authorities include the formation of committees to collect and analyse data on effective performance by local authorities of powers and functions devolved to them.
(2) The Secretary of State must not give any directions to such committees.’
The intention of this new clause is to enable Local Government to set up its own “what works” organisation on devolution to examine what’s effective, either independently or in partnership with, but separate from, the Department for Communities and Local Government.
New clause 17—Scale of devolution—
‘(1) The extent of the devolution of powers and functions to local authorities must not be dependent on the size of the population of the local authority.’
The intention of this new clause is to provide flexibility for devolution on varying scales and foot prints instead of linking the amount of devolution to the size of the recipient.
Government amendments 26, 30 and 31.
Mr Brady
I shall be brief. Amendments 40, 41 and 45 relate to a variety of questions regarding the precise powers that are to be transferred under a devolution settlement, including whether powers can be devolved down from Government and whether there is any danger or any possibility that might preclude the danger of powers being pulled up from local government and vested at a level further from the people, which I believe to be the case under the Bill as it stands.
Essentially, amendment 45, by providing a veto for any one authority in a combined authority or mayoral authority area over any decision, would establish what, in the context of the Prime Minister’s negotiations on the EU relationship, we would refer to as sovereignty. It is the opposite of the arrangement in the Bill, which we would, I suppose, call qualified majority voting. The current provisions would clearly allow a majority position in the mayoral authority to prevail over a serious objection from one, two or perhaps three authorities. If I read the Bill correctly, in fact, I think that most of the vetoes in the Greater Manchester agreement would require two-thirds opposition to a measure to prevent it from proceeding.
Amendment 45 makes it very clear that although we are pleased to participate in the new arrangement, or to enhance the existing arrangement of a combined authority, which works very well, we believe that the fundamental power in this relationship ought to reside with the local authority or with each of the local authorities in the area. If the amendment were to be agreed, it would provide that protection. As with the amendments we discussed in the earlier group, which I did not press to a vote, I do not intend to press these amendments to a Division in Committee, in the hope that Ministers will reflect on them and consider whether there are more effective ways in which these guarantees and safeguards could be provided.
Similarly, amendment 40 seeks to establish what one might call a “foundation status”. It would give a special status to the original devolution agreement, which has been acceded to by the leaders of the local authorities in Greater Manchester, which is obviously the instance I know best. The intention is that it would limit the transfer of powers from local authorities, in particular, to any transfer that might take place before the establishment of the mayoral authority and would therefore prevent any further transfers. The amendment might not be perfect, and there might be flaws in how it is drafted, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that there is a real and important point that at the moment of the inception of the mayoral authority there is a degree of consent from the local authorities, but that consent might be less certain at a later stage.
Finally, amendment 41 seeks to provide an explicit guarantee. Ministers are very clear in their statements and Members on both sides of the House have been quite enthusiastic about the principle that we are seeking to move decision making and spending closer to people, taking functions away from central Government and moving them to a more local or regional tier. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) spoke previously to his amendments seeking to establish a principle that could allow powers always to cascade down to the lowest level—something with which many of us feel a natural sympathy.
However, the Bill as it stands provides the possibility for powers to move in the opposite direction—for a local authority in any one year under any political control to decide that it wishes to cede decision making to the mayoral authority level. It is conceivable that the present Conservative Government will last for no more than another three or four Parliaments, and at some point in the future there could be a Government of another party in place. It is conceivable that a Minister less benign and less wise than my hon. Friend on the Front Bench may seek to lock into a mayoral tier of government powers sucked up from the local level.
Amendment 41 would provide a guarantee that what Ministers say they intend to achieve through the Bill and what most of us would like to see—the transfer of powers down from central Government—will indeed be the effect of the Bill, and not the reverse, the danger that the process will lead to decisions being taken further away from people, rather than closer to them.
Mr Graham Allen
Again, I shall speak about a number of issues that relate to the bigger principles and can perhaps be considered as a warm-up for the next devolution Bill, which must surely come within a couple of years, as I said in my earlier contribution, to knock the edges off this pioneering Bill, which brings serious devolution to England for the first time in my political lifetime. I tabled a number of amendments and I shall speak first to amendment 2, which is about a constitutional convention.
The work that I have been doing on a constitutional convention, which is the policy of my party and others, becomes ever more pertinent. We do not want to do parts of the jigsaw, but never see the bigger picture. Unless we step back and have a constitutional convention, we will not see how voting systems interlock with the role of a second Chamber, with the nations within the Union, and with the role of independent and devolved local government as the agents of devolution in England. This is an important Bill providing one part of that jigsaw, but at some point in the next five years we need a mechanism to allow us—hopefully, all parties—to get together, take a pace back and ask, “Where does this leave us? Where does it leave the Union? Where does it leave our democracy?”
I have spoken about the evolutionary approach to English devolution of the Minister and the Secretary of State, and I have commended both. Where does that necessarily piecemeal approach leave us in terms of the future of our country? That cannot be the property of any one party, nor should it be. The parties here have a role as a midwife, ensuring that this concept has a fair wind and is set up properly, is properly funded and provided for and has proper means of public participation, but that is all.
The political parties should take a step back from any convention, whether on local Government or on our wider democracy, and allow the citizens of the United Kingdom their say, perhaps under the auspices of one of the great and the good—an archbishop, a High Court judge or whoever they want to suggest—as worked so well in Scotland. That led to the smooth—it was also protracted, but necessarily so—development of devolution there, culminating in the Scotland Bill that was before us only a few weeks ago.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument on income tax. Might the full suite of property taxes, not just business rates, also be worth considering in this context? I draw his attention to my amendment, clearly not as well drafted as his, suggesting that property taxes should be devolved in full to London. I hope to catch Mrs Main’s eye and say a few words on that later.
Mr Allen
Our London colleagues have done some fantastic work on how to localise taxation that is currently held by the centre. That has to be done sensitively and carefully, but as I said earlier—I do not think my hon. Friend was present then—every other western democracy manages that difficulty without a problem. In Sweden, America, Canada, Italy, Germany and Holland, it is second nature to retain money locally from business rates, landfill taxes and land taxes such as stamp duty. They get by pretty well. In fact, because that system is institutionalised, their local government has immense power over and above what we have as vassals. In effect, we do what we are commanded to do according to the crumbs left in the begging bowl after the Chancellor has done his bit for the national economy.
It is absolutely open to us to do work similar to that done by my hon. Friend, Professor Tony Travers and consecutive London Mayors to liberate people. Nottingham gets a lot of tourists because of the Robin Hood tradition and the castle, so we could have a hotel tax or a bed tax of £1 a night. That happens in other western democratic countries and the people endorse it. There is a big caveat though: no council should do this unless the people have okayed it and bought into it. Councils should also be able to borrow on the open market on the basis of their credit rating, but they need to have the consent of the people. It is perfectly possible for us to do what my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr Kevan Jones
I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and, while I do not disagree with him, the proposal to retain 100% of business rates will be a disaster for some poorer areas. It is fine for areas of central London, such as Westminster, to argue for the ability to retain 100% of their business rates. However, business rates in poorer areas of the north-east and elsewhere are never going to generate a great deal. In fact, one large closure can devastate the local income base. There has to be a redistribution mechanism.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A proper redistribution mechanism—whether it is based on the amount received from income tax, business rates or any other taxation—must be in place; otherwise the system could be distorted and deeply unfair. That is why my amendments, which my hon. Friend will have read, suggest that equalisation should be central to the process; otherwise we will end up with the disjointedness he mentions.
Jonathan Edwards
In addition to the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), does the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) think there is a relationship between fiscal decentralisation and the geographical wealth of the countries that he mentioned, including the United States, which is far more balanced than the gross imbalances in the UK?
Mr Allen
No, I do not believe that is the case. That happens everywhere. Although I am very much an ardent devolver, I believe there is always a place for the federal level. President Clinton was not denied his wish to introduce Head Start to every state in the union. He did not impose it, but he offered it as a federal programme and virtually every state picked it up. Devolution would not diminish our role in this place to do good things, and it certainly should not diminish our role in insisting on the sort of equalisation that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has in mind.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that that is not what is being offered by this Government? They are offering retention of 100% of business rates without equalisation, which will have a dramatic effect on those areas with low business rate receipts. It will also be to the advantage of some areas that perhaps do not need extra resources.
Mr Allen
I again agree with my hon. Friend. We are not there yet and it is not a done deal yet. We need to make the points that he very ably makes about equalisation. I will say to him, however, that if it is a choice between being instructed by Whitehall how to spend not very much money and having not very much money to spend locally, I would go for spending it locally every time, because we will maximise value and spend the money sensitively. Whatever money is available, it is better spent by those who know what they are doing, rather than by the man in Whitehall. I totally accept my hon. Friend’s points.
Mr Thomas
Is not a further argument for local taxes being controlled at local level that it allows local government a full range of policy responses to deal with local problems? I offer the example—I hope to catch your eye on this later, Mrs Main—of the housing crisis in London, where an ability to impose higher taxes on empty homes might be one part of the solution to the housing crisis.
Mr Allen
The nuance that I would add to my hon. Friend’s excellent point is that local taxation need not necessarily always be collected locally. Income tax is a very good example. Provided that it is distributed fairly from the centre, it makes a lot of sense for collection to be a central function, with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs simply continuing to do what it does, openly and transparently. Other things—he mentioned a hotel tax, business rates and so on—are much more amenable to local decision making, but we are long way from that.
Graham Stringer
My hon. Friend is committed to and searching for radical localist solutions. He mentioned the efficiency of decisions taken locally. My experience is that local government is much more efficient than central Government. Would not the most radical constitutional change be to make central Government responsible to local government, not the other way round?
Mr Allen
I would not ever wish to do to central Government what they have done to local government. I will therefore resist the temptation that my hon. Friend puts in my way. Sometimes, however, when we are being lectured about fiscal prudence, I ask myself: who has the triple A rating in this country? It is local government, rather than central Government. Who goes cap in hand to international lenders? Central Government. Who runs tight and balanced budgets? Local government. A central Government of any political colour who lectures local government should look in the mirror first.
I just want to mention one last new clause, new clause 16. It relates to having an institution, created by local government, as one of the What Works institutions that, thankfully, are now springing up across and outside government. They take the best possible practice out there and spread it around. A national-level inspectorate can tell local government what to do, but I am saying that there is a different model. We should draw up from the localities to national level something selected by the localities to spread best practice. We all want to do better and to hear who is doing the good stuff.
I will boast about the fact that the city of Nottingham has just come with the idea of an energy broker. Anybody can phone up and get the best deal—done. It will save people several hundred pounds a year. It is a not-for-profit service. As a Nottingham patriot, I could go on about our trams and many other innovations that we are introducing with two hands tied behind our back.
If we release people in the way I am describing, we can show them best practice and we can see what they are doing. I ask the Minister to consider that point very seriously. The Government have very generously created What Works institutions in policing and early intervention —I played a small part in creating the Early Intervention Foundation—and there are about 10 of them across the board. We need an organisation created by local government and that local government will respect—based in the LGA, the Department for Communities and Local Government or wherever—to give advice, offer evidence and fight local government’s corner. That is something for the Minister to take away and consider, and I hope it will reappear in the next of the two other devolution Bills I anticipate before 2020.
John Stevenson
I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about amendment 50, which I tabled. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says, but it is not my intention to press it to a vote.
As the Minister is well aware, I fully support the Government’s overall aims and intentions. It is sensible that this is an enabling Bill and that it allows the maximum possible flexibility. I think that it will lead to innovation and fresh thinking not just at the national level, but at the local level. Indeed over the past few years, local authorities have demonstrated that they are innovative and that they can change.
I appreciate that the Government want to reform local government with the support of local government. The Bill gives local government the opportunity to step up to the plate and embrace these opportunities. It gives local authorities the chance to take responsibility, to take on more powers and to achieve an awful lot more for their communities. I understand that the Government do not want to impose things on local authorities, but to discuss and negotiate with them in order to come to a deal that is beneficial for central and local government.
A key part of this change is not only about powers, but about governance and structure. There has been an extensive discussion about elected mayors, of which I am an enthusiastic supporter. Indeed, I believe that elected mayors should be the default position for all councils throughout the country. I will continue to support and encourage that idea. However, I accept that the Government want local areas to come up with their own solutions and ideas for change on both governance and structure. I understand the thinking behind that.
I do, however, have some concerns. If I may take this opportunity to be rather parochial, I would like to talk a little about Cumbria. I suspect that other areas face similar circumstances, but I will just discuss my own county. Cumbria has been described as a county that is over-governed and under-led. We have more than 380 councillors and seven councils, yet we have only half a million people. That system was created in 1974 and is now clearly not fit for purpose. It is recognised by everybody locally, including all the political parties, industry, business, the health service and local people, that it has to change, and that it has to do so soon if it is to be part of the devolutionary changes that are happening and to take the opportunities that are available to local government.
However, there is a potential problem. That is why I tabled amendment 50. I believe that it is wrong in a two-tier area for one authority effectively to have a veto over any change, even if it is a sensible and well-supported proposal made by the rest of the county and all the other districts. That allows one authority to stop popular and vital reforms going ahead. Anyone who understands Cumbrian politics will know that that is a distinct possibility.
Amendment 50 is not about allowing central Government to impose their will over what happens in Cumbria—I want to emphasise that. It is about stopping one authority denying progressive change that is in the interests of people throughout Cumbria. Cumbria is an obvious example of this problem because six of its authorities could be prevented from bringing about badly needed and well-supported reform by one maverick authority.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very interested in the point that my hon. Friend is making, but concerned that his proposal would undermine one of the principles behind what the Government are doing, which is to ensure that there is consent for the proposals. Does he feel that if what he is describing were to happen, it would be right to have a referendum to ensure that people were not having decisions made for them wrongly by the hierarchy above them?
John Stevenson
I do not feel that a referendum would be necessary, because the councillors on the various councils are the elected representatives of the people. My concern is that one authority might dig its heels in and prevent change that is in the beneficial interests of the rest of the council and all the other districts, particularly given that sacrifices will be made by those districts and the county council.
I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to what I consider to be a modest and sensible amendment. I look forward to him accepting it on Report.
Mr Betts
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said about the need for a wider constitutional settlement. That was apposite, and at some point we will have to address those issues. I agree with his points about subsidiarity and taking that below the level of an individual local authority, and about encouraging the process down.
Fiscal devolution is a challenge, and Members have reflected different perspectives from different parts of the country. It is a challenge, but not one that we should duck. I am Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, on which the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) sat in the previous Parliament. He made important and valuable contributions to our report. We found a way to take on board proposals from the London Finance Commission about the wider devolution of property taxes, while recognising the need to protect areas that will perhaps struggle to raise business rates and other property taxes easily, or to get back money from areas that simply watch property prices rise and receive enormous windfalls. We must have balance in the system.
The Committee has begun an inquiry into the workings of devolution and the Bill, but since then the Chancellor has made his announcement about the full localisation of business rates. The Committee will want to come back and look at how that will be done. I think most Members would support the principle behind such a move, but how will we implement it to ensure protection for poorer areas? How will we devolve more powers to local government to take account of the extra money made available as part of that process?
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Select Committee must consider business rates retention in detail. One possible solution for devolved city regions might be the pooling and sharing of business rates. For example, parts of Greater Manchester are key drivers of economic growth, and that wealth should be spread across the whole conurbation for the benefit of all.
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is right, and the Committee made that recommendation in the previous Parliament. It is a way that we can devolve the redistribution process to more local areas. That does not work everywhere, but it would probably work well in areas such as Manchester that have a spread of different local authorities
Mr Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend’s point about poorer areas and the full devolution of business rates is apposite. Is the Chancellor’s suggestion to axe completely the revenue support grant for local authorities—that was in the same speech as plans for the full devolution of business rates—likely to have a dramatic impact on increasing inequality of income between areas? Will my hon. Friend’s Committee be considering that?
Mr Betts
We will certainly want to consider that issue. From reading what has been said, and the written statement that was presented to the House on the first day back after the recess, there does not seem to be a commitment simply to leave the amount of business rates collected in an area with that local authority. Instead there was a move to allow the full retention of the growth of business rates, and then a decision about what to do with the rest. I think that is the position, but Ministers will have to explain it further in due course. I am sure that the Committee will want to explore that.
The Minister and I have slightly different views about whether elected mayors should be a requirement for full devolution, but the Minister won the vote and that measure is back in the Bill. I am still concerned to have a level playing field, however, and I am surprised about one element in the Bill that Ministers have not sought to explain. Amendment 60 would delete from clause 5(1)(7) words that would devolve to a mayor who is exercising powers independently, any powers that are
“similar to any power exercisable by the mayoral combined authority…but the power conferred on the mayor may not include a power to borrow money.”
When a combined authority is set up, it can have the power to borrow money. In the Sheffield city region, the combined authority has to borrow money for the functions of economic development, skills and matters devolved to it. The mayor will effectively become the transport authority and exercise transport functions. In exercising those functions, however, the mayor will not be able to borrow money. Somebody else will have to do that if, for example, a new tram system is going to be developed. The mayor will have to go to somebody else and say, “Will you borrow money for me?”
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is my view that there are no problems with the Bill. I championed it last week because I believed the Government were right to give more powers to councils, which can better address the issues in their areas. Cornwall does not have an elected mayor, but it does have a rather unique sense of identity and a desire to get its traditional low-wage economy functioning as a high-wage, high-skill one and to secure the lifestyle benefits that brings.
As many Members are aware, the Bill was preceded by the Cornwall deal, which, as a Cornwall MP and local councillor, I was proud to see signed off by the separate bodies and the Minister. Devolution for Cornwall recognises the needs of its people. The Government are saying to the people of Cornwall, “If you want more power, you can have it.” It is no secret that Cornwall has been a very deprived area. This is not just recognised nationally; it is also recognised on the continent. Cornwall has received European funding to improve this situation, but the last round created only 3,500 jobs out of the 10,000 planned. This is in a county of only 500,000 people. Those 10,000 jobs would have been of huge benefit to us, but the funding was not properly utilised. Cornwall has now been granted intermediate body status and so gets to take control of such money. That is the best way to make businesses grow. Let us give business the opportunities to invest.
As a rural area, Cornwall struggles with the reliability and frequency of transport links. In my constituency, there are no main line railways—there is not one passing anywhere near the constituency—so I know how important bus links are to communities. I am glad, therefore, that bus links were part of the deal. Not everyone has a car or driving licence, so it is buses that help them to commute to and from work. The Cornwall deal now gives us greater control over those bus links, and with the introduction of smart ticketing, like that in London, we can move Cornwall into the 21st century.
Cornwall and local health organisations plan to introduce a business plan for the integration of health and social care, meaning that Cornwall will have a greater say over how healthcare is provided to our elderly, sick and vulnerable constituents. With the empowerment of local government, however, comes great responsibility, and my constituents want to hold local government to account. This deal makes that possible. It gives the power to local people to hold their politicians and boards accountable. I feel proud to be MP for an area that has seen these devolved powers. It is a historic deal for Cornwall, and I hope that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will feel the same way when the same powers are devolved to their areas.
Mr Gareth Thomas
I rise to make the case for new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name, but first, I should preface my comments by supporting the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about a constitutional settlement. That is an entirely sensible way forward. I do not know whether he has considered the distinctiveness of London as part of that settlement, but I think that any such convention should recognise its difference, the scale of the challenges facing it and the significant contribution it makes to the wealth of the UK as a whole.
I read new clause 22, debated in the previous group, with interest, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), whom I understand was its genesis. I hesitate to commend him more fully, in case it damages his career, but I am encouraged that the Labour Front-Bench team recognise the need to argue quickly for more devolution to London. I hope to persuade him and the Committee that my new clauses contain the substance of what needs to be devolved to London.
The substance of new clause 11, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), secured cross-party support in London as a result of the London Finance Commission, which Tony Travers chaired and which was established by the Mayor of London, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). That commission recommended that the full sweep of property taxes—not just business rates, but council tax, stamp duty, capital gains, property development tax and the annual tax on enveloped dwellings—should be devolved to London.
High property prices in London mean that the capital contributes a disproportionate amount to the Treasury through property taxes. Last year alone, some £3 billion was paid in stamp duty in London—40% of the total, more than was paid in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland put together.
It is right that much of the wealth generated in London is redistributed around the UK. There should be continuing equalisation measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) rightly said, perhaps through the revenue support grant or other means. There should also be a corresponding reduction in grant income to London to ensure that devolution of property taxes is fiscally neutral to the Treasury.
My point, however, is that London needs to control more of the wealth that we create to solve the challenges that our city faces. We have the most severe housing crisis of any part of the UK, the highest cost of living, and the starkest levels of inequality. Our transport infrastructure is under huge pressure, and we have stubbornly high levels of child poverty and deprivation. I say that not in any way to dispute the fact that other parts of the UK face significant challenges as well, but merely to underline the argument that London needs to be able to control more of the levers to shape our responses to these challenges.
I thus support the instinct to retain 100% of business rates, but it is the full devolution of all property taxes that is needed to help us in London to tackle our challenges, with a pound-for-pound reduction in London’s revenue support grant as the quid pro quo going forward. There is widespread support among the business community for the devolution of property taxes because that community recognises that it is key to developing the necessary infrastructure to promote economic growth.
I use as my example the 40 years it has taken to start work on Crossrail. Given the pressures that London’s rapidly growing population is creating for further investment in infrastructure, it is vital for big infrastructure decisions to be brought to resolution more quickly and for the control of property and taxation to be exercised at London-wide levels, which would increase the Mayor’s ability—and, indeed, that of local councils—to put the financing together for the infrastructure schemes necessary for the future. Greater control over property taxes would ease the borrowing constraints on London’s local councils so that they could invest in vital infrastructure such as affordable housing.
As the London Finance Commission set out, London currently controls only 7% of the taxes that are paid here, compared with more than 50% in New York. Property taxes are set locally in Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Tokyo. Such control would not only enable London to plan infrastructure projects better, but allow greater scope to ensure that the property taxes that are levied suit London’s property and land markets. For example, the introduction of a hotel occupancy tax, as successfully levied in New York, could raise up to £50 million a year for London. Even if the Minister is not minded to support my new clause 11 at this juncture, he might give some indication of being tempted to develop a feeling of courage in taking on the Treasury and advocate further devolution of more property taxes to London.
New clause 10 devolves responsibility for housing law to the Mayor and Assembly. That matches arrangements for Scotland and Wales and would allow Londoners themselves to decide whether to extend the right to buy and whether or not to cut rents. It is the scale of the housing crisis that provides the overarching rationale for this new clause. We have seen a huge drop in owner-occupation in London. An average home in London costs nine times the average wage of a police officer, 21 times the average wage of a chef and 35 times the wage of a Foreign Office cleaner. Rents have rocketed, and are not expected to bottom out any time soon. Homelessness has also increased rapidly: there has been a 50% increase in my own borough over the past five years. Meanwhile, Ministers—and I say this with all due respect to the Minister who is present—sit on their hands doing very little about a crisis which, given that we are building fewer than half the homes a year that London needs, is likely to become more rather than less acute unless radical steps are taken.
Mr Kevan Jones
Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), calls for the creation of a constitutional convention, which I think is very important.
As we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Government’s proposals are likely to end up as a dog’s breakfast. The Bill does not represent a movement for devolution or an attempt to improve local government or governance; it represents a clear political agenda. It is about the Chancellor’s vision of a small state Britain that will make it easier for him to push through draconian cuts. Once he has pushed responsibilities down to local government or regional tiers, he will be able to top-slice the budgets, while the difficult decisions will have to be faced locally, by mayors and councils. Those individuals will get the blame for the tough decisions that will be taken. The Chancellor and this Government will step back and say, “I’m sorry, it’s not our fault; it’s your local decision-making process.”
This is a unique way of approaching the devolution debate in this country. There have been other approaches. There was the Crowther debate in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which stood back and looked at not only Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but how to devolve power locally. The Redcliffe-Maud reorganisation of local government took time to look at future structures for local government. That was controversial at the time—some of the historical counties were abolished, for example— but at least there was an evidence base.
That is not what is on offer now, which is why amendment 2 is so important. We need a properly thought-out national debate on devolution and what the structures will be. What we have now in this so-called enabling legislation is legislation with a big stick attached to it. Local areas such as the north-east have been told they can have devolution but only if there is an elected mayor, even though the Minister keeps denying that. He said an interesting thing in response to the previous set of amendments; he said no area would be disadvantaged if it did not go down the devolution route. That is not what he has been saying in the region or what his supporters in the Conservative party have been arguing in the region. The argument there is that if these truculent local authorities do not agree to devolution, they will lose out on all this money. The Minister has changed his tune this afternoon and said that is not conditional. It will be welcome if there is still an option to get those extra resources without necessarily going down the route he wants.
This is about local decision making, but what is key in any organisation is who holds the purse-strings. The Chancellor still holds the purse-strings under what is being proposed, and when the tough decisions come down the line his fingerprints will not be on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) mentioned business rates. I take his point: allowing local councils and others to have the powers to regenerate areas and try to create extra revenue is welcome, but he will appreciate—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North noted earlier—that there is not a level playing field across the UK. Without any mechanism for redistribution in local business rates, areas such as the north-east—those that have already been hit disproportionately by this Government taking the need element out of grant formula, which rewards richer areas more than poorer areas—are going to lose out.
Westminster city council will benefit if it gets to retain 100% of its business rates and gains from any new development it can have. Its situation will be easy compared with that of the poor people of Redcar; Redcar council is going to find it very difficult to attract new development that plugs the hole left by the closure of the steelworks.
We need to ensure we put in place structures that not only will work and have the support of people, but are practical. If we have a Teesside mayor and a mayor for the north-east, both will have responsibility for transport in their area. Where that will leave the A19, the M1 or any of the other transport links that cross the area, no one seems to know. Will the mayor of Teesside be responsible for the section of the A19 as far as the border of the area? Will the mayor for the north-east assume responsibility for the road network beyond that point? Therein lies one of the issues.
The Government said that they were against regions, but they have now divided quite a small geographical area. Supporters of the proposals have not explained how all this will work in practice. They have been out there in the north-east vigorously putting forward their case. Many of them have been posing as business people while forgetting to tell everyone that they are actually Conservatives.
There is a similar problem with resource allocation. The Government are proposing to impose a new tier of regional government, but how will it relate to the existing local authority tiers? The Minister keeps saying that this will be different because it involves moving power down from Whitehall to the region, but I can envisage people starting to ask whether they really need the large numbers of councils that they have at the moment. That will certainly happen in Manchester, for example. I know that turkeys do not usually vote for Christmas, but some local authorities need to think about where the Government’s agenda will lead. The Conservative party has traditionally been quite passionate about local government—it has always been supportive of it—but I believe that the Bill represents a move to reduce those tiers of local representation.
We need to step back and look not only at how the new system will work in practice but at the levels of local support. The Government are refusing to allow the people of the north-east a say in whether they want an extra tier of local government. The Minister is adamant that he is not prepared to give those people a say over whether they want an elected mayor whose responsibilities would stretch from the Scottish border down to Barnard Castle. As I said earlier, when we proposed a regional assembly in 2004, we quite rightly put it to the people. The Conservatives and their supporters argued vigorously against the proposal, and I am sure that if the then Labour Government had imposed an assembly on the region without taking the proposal to the people, we would rightly have been criticised. There would have been an outcry. Those same advocates who argued against us then are keeping very quiet now, however.
I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson). He has raised various issues, and I agree that there is a problem. One question that some of the smaller district councils will face is whether they will have capacity as a result of the cuts that will be imposed in the autumn statement, on top of those that have already been imposed. The last Labour Government introduced unitary councils in the north-east, in Durham, and it was one of the best things that happened making decisions more straightforward. I hate to think what some of those smaller councils would do if they were still in existence now, given the cuts that this Government have imposed. I doubt that they would have the capacity to deliver their services.
I put it to the Minister that these larger areas will need an effective mechanism for ensuring that local people are engaged in the decision-making process. I used to work in Cumbria and I know it well. I understand some of the attitudes he has referred to. Having a veto over decisions on what is needed there could be a disadvantage for Cumbria rather than an advantage.
We need the measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North is proposing. We should have had them in place before we embarked on this process, but the Government know exactly what they are doing. This is not about devolution. It is about the clear political agenda of the Conservatives and the Chancellor. They know what they are doing, and it has nothing at all to do with the proper devolution of decision making.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I concur that a constitutional convention would be very sensible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) said.
I hear the idea of a hotel tax in London—I hope it is not on my constituents coming down for a good overnight stay, but on those coming from abroad. I am not sure a hotel tax would work particularly well in Bassetlaw, although it is worth considering. I recall that until the last few years Welbeck Estates levied £3 on every tonne of coal produced for a century. If local government had been allowed to do that, Bassetlaw would be a very different place, because the infrastructure and so on would have been appropriately remunerated for the coal that we provided for the rest of the country in wartime and in peacetime, at great cost. That concept of local decision making is a very good one, so I would accord with the idea, but I hope there would be some exemptions to anything that is done in relation to the good people of Bassetlaw.
Mr Betts
My hon. Friend is reiterating the point that I was making earlier, and I entirely agree with him. Although Bassetlaw could not be forced into D2N2, could it not be prevented from joining the Sheffield city region as a full member? In other words, it could be left in limbo.
John Mann
I suppose Bassetlaw would have the option of declaring itself a unitary authority, of getting approval for that and of joining Sheffield city region. There may be routes around it, but the principle is fundamental. We need to have the ability to choose. If those two choices were put to the electorate, I suspect that I know which they would choose, and probably decisively. They may have a different view to me, but that is their prerogative—we have a word for that: democracy. What we do not want is “undemocracy”. Some people are very hostile to what the Government are doing and some are much more sympathetic. Either way, will these two options—is it the D2N2 model—lead to more councillors?
Mr Kevan Jones
I am very interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. He knows that I am very familiar with his constituency, having grown up there. Does he think that the fundamental weakness of this Bill is that there is nowhere for the people to have a say in what actually happens?
John Mann
The Minister will clarify whether, legally, people can have a say, but I am sure that there are ways in which a say can be created to ensure that there is popular consent. There are ways in which we could choose to do that. I am not talking about my own informal consultations, which are pretty huge. It would be interesting to get the Minister’s take on that. Those are key points.
Can we have some assurance that, over time, these measures will not lead to more elected representatives? If people are honest, they understand that if we have a two-tier scenario linked in with unitaries, either the districts or the counties will inevitably go at some stage, and probably sooner rather than later. That is bound to happen. Some may say that that is a good thing. As I have said, I have argued for unitaries before, but it is important that councillors understand that that is what is happening. Similarly, it must be clear that we will be able to choose, and the Derbyshire districts will be able to choose, where we will go. I am sure that the Government want that. They say that it is a brilliant idea, so they must want us to be part of it. It is really how we do that with guarantees. It would be useful to have that on the record.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
As a former leader of a council and a member of a combined authority and local enterprise partnership, I welcome the thrust of the Bill. There is no question about that. I said in a previous debate that the train is going out of the station—the cat is out of the bag, to mix metaphors. Whichever description we use, this is the reality.
I do not deny that the governance structure in local regions is important, but whatever that structure is we must move the debate on. Local government has changed over centuries. In the 19th century, it changed to reflect the industrial revolution. It changed at the beginning of the last century and at the end to reflect the patterns of population, demography, business and so on. It has changed over time. London changed in the early ’60s, we changed again in the 1970s and it is now time to change once more. People might have concerns, but that is life. It has to move on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) made a point about having too many councillors, but I am pretty agnostic on that. The United States have significantly more councillors proportionately than we do, and they get on okay, and the same applies to the French. It is part of the heart of a community that there might be lots of councillors. I am not arguing for that, but I do not think that it is a reason for not going ahead with changes.
I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about the principle. There will be changes to local government and devolution in the coming years, and we might as well recognise that while we are in this transition and get on board with the constitutional convention. That does not stop things happening now, but we really need to get on with it, and I ask the Government to consider that seriously.
I also support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said. He referred to some of the specifics. It seems remarkable that a mayor would not have the borrowing powers he described. I hope that is just a mistake—a lacuna in the legislation—that will be put right. It is important that the detail is picked up.
There is a danger that this debate will get a bit too esoteric. Do I think that devolution will be good for my city region of Liverpool? Yes, it will. Why? This is not unique to us, but we have a thriving visitor economy. For many years, that has been our direction of travel and Liverpool is now the fourth most popular city in England for national and international visitors. That could link into the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw about hotel taxes and the ability, if that many people are coming into the city from abroad, to use that revenue if we so wish. I am not saying that we should, but we should have that flexibility if we want it. The visitors are coming to my city, not to anybody else’s, and that is important.
At the moment, the visitor economy brings in £3.8 billion and 40,000 jobs, and it is a major growth sector. Do I think that the city region would manage that, grow it and progress it better? Yes, I do. There is no question about that. If we wait for Whitehall to help us, we will be waiting until the cows come home, and I mean no disrespect to Whitehall.
Mr Graham Allen
My hon. Friend reminds me that Thomas Jefferson once said that were people to wait for Washington to tell them when to reap and when to sow, they would soon go hungry. The same probably applies if we wait for Whitehall to figure out how to do some of these things. Will my hon. Friend also comment on local government borrowing and social investment bonds? In America, there is a multi-trillion dollar local government capital market. People borrow, they return, they use their liquidity and they stash money overnight. That would be a fantastic source of revenue that is currently denied to local government.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend is spot on in in identifying some of the mechanisms that can be used to help local economies. For example, low carbon investment accounts for 1,400 businesses in our area and is a major growth sector. Among the organisations that invest in our area is Copenhagen city council. Why cannot we as a city council or a local authority invest in our area in that way? Devolution will eventually enable us to do that. The low carbon industry is one of our priorities and brings a huge amount of money into the local economy. We want to grow that area, and we could do that best ourselves.
There are other reasons why my city region will benefit from devolution. We want more manufacturing. The Government have said that they want to move into manufacturing because that helps with exports. In our area advanced manufacturing is worth £3.2 billion and accounts for 50,000 jobs and 3,000 businesses. Again, we need to grow that as part of our strategy, which may well fit in with the Government’s agenda. It may not, but that is a matter for us. We are working closely with businesses through the LEP and outside the LEP to continue to develop that sector.
The creative and digital sector is important. Merseyside had a long history of creativity. I am not saying that other places do not have that, but for decades we have had the benefit of the creativity that we have brought on, and we want to continue to bring it on. Why not? That will be best done from within Merseyside. The sector is worth £878 million, and accounts for 3,500 businesses and almost 19,000 jobs. We are best placed to grow that. The life sciences and health sector is huge and worth £1.7 billion, with the potential to grow even more.
I gave those examples of our priorities—the visitor economy, advanced manufacturing and so on—because many of those have been pushed from within our area. We want the structure, the capability, and the devolution of powers and resources to enable us to push them further.
This may be a radical proposal and it may be slightly party political. The Conservatives have made major cuts in our local government budget in Merseyside and other areas, and that will continue. If that happens, so be it, although I do not agree with it. But I would rather have devolved budgets and resources even at a lesser amount if we can determine how to use them, because our priorities may not be the priorities of the Government. One of the good things that the Government did was to lift much of the ring-fencing which had become endemic over the past 10 or 15 years.
If, with devolution, comes the resource—appropriately equitable, possibly over a transition period—all the better. Colleagues in my neck of the woods and I welcome devolution. We want to be able to push the agenda on for our area and we think we are best placed to do that. Importantly, we would be accountable for that at a local level, and that is the key.
Mr Steve Reed
This group of amendments deals with the functions of combined authorities and their funding. I shall try to cover the whole range and also speak to our amendment.
The Minister said that he and the Government are listening to these debates and making changes as a result. It is disappointing, therefore, that they have not brought any significant changes to the Committee in relation to this group, after the debates and decisions that were taken in the Lords, and the debate on Second Reading, on introducing stronger financial powers. Areas are being given new powers, which is absolutely welcome, but the truth is that they will lack the resources they need to use them fully.
Local government has proven itself to be more efficient than national Government, as hon. Members have testified, but Whitehall still will not let go. That is why I tabled amendment 58, which would introduce multi-year financial settlements. That would offer city regions financial stability and allow them to have long-term planning, which currently is not on offer under the financial settlement or the funding of local enterprise partnerships. Without long-term funding arrangements, they cannot plan sensibly for the long term.
The Government must commit to providing devolved regions with the resources they need so that they are not being set up to fail. The regional development agencies, which LEPs replaced, were able to make single three-year funding arrangements. LEPs are in many respects better, but they have access to a smaller budget, and there are far too many small ring-fenced grants, which constrains their ability to take the big, long-term, strategic decisions in the way they need to. We must ensure that combined authorities do not suffer the same problems.
Amendment 58 would therefore make provision for multi-year funding agreements, which would give combined authorities the resources and time they need to build financial stability and allow them to best protect themselves against unfair funding settlements of the kind we have seen central Government deliver since 2010, which I fear we are going to see again when the Chancellor makes his pre-Budget statement to the House in a few weeks’ time. This is an important issue, and I believe that the success or otherwise of devolution depends on it, so we will seek to push that amendment to a vote.
A number of other amendments are aimed at increasing financial stability. We are particularly interested in the Government’s view of those. I urge the Minister, in the Secretary of State’s absence, to respond to them so that we do not have to bring them back on Report. In particular, amendment 60, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), seeks further powers to allow mayors to borrow. New clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would allow local areas more discretion over the setting of council tax bands.
New clauses 10 and 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), seek further devolution to London. I think he is quite right to point out that the devolution journey in London has not ended, because the capital is seeking further powers. His points about devolving housing to London are certainly worth further exploration. However, it is worrying that the Housing and Planning Bill contains more than 30 centralising measures, taking powers away from the localities and putting them in the hands of Ministers here in Whitehall, which runs completely contrary to everything we have heard from Ministers this afternoon about their devolution intentions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West also referred to fiscal devolution. We certainly need to see that, but it must sit alongside a fair equalisation mechanism, with incentives for areas so that they can benefit by expanding their economic potential, including the ability to invest in housing, infrastructure and those things that will increase the opportunity for jobs and prosperity.
The Government have tabled a number of minor amendments relating to the functions of police and crime commissioners, particularly amendments 23, 24 and 25 to schedule 2. There have been a number of media reports about devolving fire service functions to PCCs, but the Bill gives those functions to mayors. Can the Minister assure the House that fire services will not be politicised in the hands of mayors, a move that the Local Government Association says there is “no pressing need for” at this stage?
We support the principle of subsidiarity—an ugly word for a beautiful concept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North reminded us in relation to his new clause 2—which states that decisions should be taken as close to citizens as possible. That is a very important principle that central Government repeatedly fail to understand.
On my hon. Friend’s points about a constitutional convention, he has been constrained to keep within the scope of this Bill by talking about a local convention. However, we believe that we do need a model for engaging civic society in the whole country—citizens, not just politicians—in seeking a new constitutional settlement that will shift powers not just from Whitehall to town hall but to communities, neighbourhoods, service users and all citizens to get power out of this place and into the hands of people who can really make a difference once they have access to it.
James Wharton
We have had an interesting and wide-ranging discussion. I recognise the comments made by hon. Members across the Committee and the range of amendments that have been tabled.
New clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 16, and amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), are about the constitutional position of local government and putting in place arrangements for a constitutional convention to review this and implement any constitutional reforms considered necessary. I recognise his consistency in pursuing this issue; indeed, he also has a private Member’s Bill related to it. No one would deny the importance of constitutional matters. The traditions of this country are that we approach these matters in a pragmatic, evolutionary way. Our constitution has evolved over the centuries and continues to do so to meet the real needs of our people across the United Kingdom and to reflect the changes that are taking place in the wider world. I absolutely recognise the hon. Gentleman’s intentions and interest in this area, but I feel that this approach has served us well and I am confident that it will continue to do so.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments is that, for the first time in our history, we would put our constitution on a more rigid basis, seeking to codify issues and, in a sense, to set them in stone. Although they recognise the importance of constitutional issues and strongly support the passing of power down to the lowest practical level that this Bill will enable—the essence of devolution—the amendments are unnecessary and would be out of step with our traditions. They are also somewhat outwith the scope and intention of this particular Bill. However, I recognise his desire to put these matters on the agenda and his belief that they need to be addressed. I am sure it is not the last time that they will be discussed across the Floor of the House.
Mr Graham Allen
If the Minister thinks the system is serving us well, may I gently remind him that six or seven months ago we came within 6 percentage points of the Union breaking? We have all the shambles around English votes for English laws, and there are many other issues where people are clearly, given voter participation levels alone, disenchanted with politics. Does he not agree that the great work he is doing on English devolution could be the spark to re-engage a lot of people who are very jaundiced about our politics?
James Wharton
As I said, I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interest and expertise in this area, and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss it further across the Floor of the House, whether in relation to this Bill or other areas of policy. He tempts me to go further than I am willing to go in my comments today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) tabled amendment 50, which would give the Secretary of State powers to establish unitary authorities even if not all the councils concerned in a combined authority area agreed to the change. Our approach is that if a governance change is to be made, there needs to be a level of consensus about the choice over the whole area. We are not in the business of imposing change on anyone. However, I recognise my hon. Friend’s desire to raise this issue. He is not the only Member to have done so. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has spoken about similar issues today and has met me to speak about them separately. We are about to engage in ongoing correspondence on the matter. I am of course happy to meet my hon. Friend if he would like to discuss this further, and I am pleased that he will not press his amendment to the vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) tabled amendments 47, 48, and 49, which make a special case for Somerset. Just to be absolutely clear and to put it on the record, Somerset is a very special and exceptional place, but I explained earlier why I do not consider it appropriate to treat it differently in terms of this Bill. Nor do I believe that the substance of the amendments, which are about how the principle that changes in an area’s governance are a matter for local choice should be applied, are necessary given the existing safeguards. Somerset, or indeed any council, could be not required to join a combined authority or be conferred new central Government powers if those democratically elected to represent the people of the area did not consent. The councils of Somerset—or, indeed, the councils of some place less special—can themselves decide how they want to take their residents’ views into account. Those who have been elected should decide these matters. That is four square with our traditions of representative democracy, and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will not press his amendments to a vote.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his assurances, which are extremely welcome, and for acknowledging that Somerset is an extremely special place. On that basis, I will not press my amendments later.
James Wharton
I thank my hon. Friend and note that flattery can get you a long way in this business.
The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) tabled new clause 10, which would provide for the devolution of the Secretary of State’s housing powers to the Mayor of London. Since 2012, the Mayor of London has had overall responsibility for housing policy and delivery in London, taking over from the Homes and Communities Agency. The Mayor has powers to set strategic housing and regeneration policy through the London housing strategy. The Secretary of State has a legitimate role in relation to housing across England and it would be inappropriate to remove that role.
The amendment would weaken the Mayor’s role by requiring the Assembly’s consent. That fundamentally misinterprets the role of the London Assembly, which is a scrutiny not an Executive body. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s desire to pursue the issue and to put it on the record. I am sure he will want it to be considered further as matters progress and that this is not the last time it will be discussed on the Floor of the House.
A significant number of other amendments relate to finance. Government amendment 9 provides greater flexibility in funding the functions to be devolved. Orders under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 enable a combined authority to levy for transport purposes, and the constituent councils to make financial contributions to that combined authority to fund economic development and regeneration functions. The amendment provides flexibility to enable the constituent councils, if they so wish, to make financial contributions for any function of the combined authority, not just economic development and regeneration.
Opposition amendment 58—which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), has said he wishes to pursue further this evening—proposes that the Secretary of State be allowed the power to allow combined authorities to set multi-year finance settlements. For a combined authority to set multi-year budgets, it requires not a power from central Government, but the certainty of knowing what funding it is to get. The deals we have agreed with Greater Manchester and the Sheffield city region show how funding across the years can be agreed. We do not, though, need powers to put in place multi-year settlements for local authorities. We can already do that administratively as part of the wider local government finance settlement.
Amendment 60, tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), would delete from clause 5 the exclusion of borrowing powers from the ancillary powers that can be given to a combined authority mayor. I listened very carefully to his contribution and understand his concerns. We agree that in appropriate cases there should be prudential borrowing for funding investment for which the mayor is responsible. The Bill provides for that, and the exclusion that the amendment seeks to remove is not about prohibiting such prudential borrowing.
Clause 10 makes provision for funding combined authorities and, in particular, provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations specifying the functions for which there can be borrowing. The Bill explicitly provides that those functions can include mayoral functions and that the constituent councils must consent to any regulations allowing borrowing.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are indeed borrowing powers for mayoral functions. In addition to devolving powers to a mayor, the Bill also allows ancillary powers to be conferred on a mayor to allow him or her to exercise the devolved powers. These ancillary powers could be those needed to ensure that there are no doubts about a mayor being able to run an office or to commission necessary studies, or they could include giving the mayor a general power of competence.
The exclusion, which the amendment seeks to remove, is to make it clear that those ancillary powers cannot include a power to borrow. They cannot be a back door to borrowing. The Bill sets up a proper regime for borrowing to fund mayoral powers, and that should be the route for a mayor being able to borrow.
Mr Betts
These are complicated issues and I am not totally sure that I followed all that, and I do not know whether anyone else did, either. The Minister seemed to be reading out a brief from civil servants. Could he provide a note with a thorough explanation of the issue? None of us wants to end up with mayors who need to create transport systems but then find that they do not have the powers to borrow in order to do so.
James Wharton
In line with my desire to retain my reputation as a benign velvet glove, I have already written a note to my officials asking that we write to Members following this debate, to ensure that we fully clarify those matters. I will, of course, write to the hon. Gentleman, and if he has any concerns, I would be delighted to discuss them further with him.
Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, would enable control over decisions on business rates and council tax discounts to be devolved, if that is what is wanted locally. We have always said that we are interested in hearing proposals from authorities and that nothing is off the table for conversation. The Government have signalled their intentions and enabled a large degree of the sorts of financial flexibilities sought by the amendment. We recently announced that, by the end of this Parliament, local government will be able to retain 100% of its business rates. Through the existing powers that govern the business rates retention scheme, we can already give mayoral combined authorities their own share of local rates income and ensure that they benefit from the local growth that that will help to establish. Of course, any decision to make use of the existing powers to extend the rates retention scheme would be taken alongside that on any wider transfer of powers and functions to mayoral combined authorities.
Mr Graham Allen
Does the Minister accept that the Scotland Act 2012 gives the Scottish Government the right to retain not only 10p in the pound of income tax, but, from April, the proceeds of landfill tax and stamp duty, which are two significant amounts of money? Is there some reason why local authorities in England should not be able to have similar retention of those taxes?
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman is consistent with his theme of wanting to go further to take devolution to what I have no doubt he genuinely believes to be its logical next level. I acknowledge his comments, and I am of course happy to meet him after this Committee sitting to discuss them further. However, I do not want to hold out the false promise that a Bill that already goes so far and does so much will be amended in line with his desires. I am happy discuss with him his longer-term desires for constitutional change and for devolution to take what may well be its next steps at some point.
We made it clear in our 2015 manifesto at the last election that we would continue to help local authorities keep council tax low for hard-working taxpayers and to ensure that residents can continue to veto high rises in council tax via a local referendum. New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Gentleman, would abolish the system of council tax referendums put in place by the coalition Government. The referendum threshold is not a cap. Councils can set any council tax increase they like, provided they obtain the consent of their local electorate when they go over the threshold. We see no reason to take away the protection and the final say of local voters over excessive increases.
New clause 12, tabled by the hon. Gentleman—he has just raised this issue—would provide that income tax receipts amounting to 10p in the pound should be assigned to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which would then pass the money on to councils. We are already committed to boosting local growth: by the end of this Parliament, the local government sector will retain 100% of local taxes to spend on local government services. The new arrangements we are already committed to delivering will give the sector greater long-term certainty over its income. No longer will local authorities be reliant on central Government telling them how much money they will receive for the year ahead only weeks before they set their annual budgets. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s desire to go further and I am very happy to discuss that issue further, but I ask him not to press the new clause to a vote at this time.
James Wharton
The hon. Gentleman is articulate and persuasive, but he will not tempt me to elaborate further.
New clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrow West, provides for the devolution to London of the receipts from taxes on property. I know the Mayor’s ambitions for London and we have announced the local retention of business rates, but devolving taxes such as stamp duty to London could create a distortive effect. There would be a significant increase in administration costs for both the Greater London Authority and businesses that purchase properties both in and outside London. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will consider his comments further, but I do not want to give him the false expectation that they are likely to be reflected in the Bill or to make a commitment that I cannot fulfil at this time. He has, however, made his case very effectively.
Mr Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for his smooth words. I gently suggest that his argument against the further devolution of property taxes as distortionary does not fit with his argument for devolving business rates, which will arguably be just as distortionary, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said. There seems to be a slight lack of consistency in the Minister’s position, which may be because of what the Treasury has bequeathed him. I encourage him to go back to the Treasury and press it further before Report.
James Wharton
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. The announcement that we will devolve business rates was made in the way it was exactly because we wanted to ensure that we talked to local government about how it should be done to make sure it works properly and effectively and meets our policy desires. To devolve certain taxes to just one area is a different proposition. He clearly supports it and argues for it effectively, but it does not have a place in this Bill at this time.
Amendment 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North, clarifies that the persons who may be invited to attend an overview scrutiny committee meeting may include
“representatives of parish, neighbourhood, community and other councils in the area of the combined authority”.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention and commend him for pursuing openness in the process, but the Bill already allows people to attend. To define them in a list risks the provision being narrowly interpreted, rather than broadly interpreted, which is what we want.
Mr Graham Allen
The intention is to ensure that those who operate below the council level at neighbourhood or parish level feel involved and engaged, rather than going along as members of the public, so that they can take the next step of pushing devolution down into double devolution. Surely engaging those people would be a very good thing to do.
James Wharton
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that engagement is important. My contention is that the Bill provides for it with the power to allow persons to attend and invite persons to be present to scrutinise the process. My argument is that defining a list of particular types of persons or bodies risks narrowing the interpretation. However, I understand what the hon. Gentleman desires to achieve.
I will now discuss the amendments that relate to requirements on the exercise of mayoral powers. Amendments 40, 41 and 45, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) would place requirements on mayoral powers. Amendment 40 provides that a function may only be specified as a function of the mayor with the consent of the combined authority prior to the creation of the post of mayor. We have concerns over the latter part of that amendment, because it appears to rule out a further transfer of functions to a mayor once the position has been established. It seems to mean that the deal that is reached initially is the deal, full stop.
Amendment 45 underlines hon. Members’ concerns that the constituent councils must be content with the list of functions to be exercisable by the mayor. I understand hon. Members’ concerns and agree that no local authority functions should be conferred on a combined authority, with or without a mayor, without the consent of the councils involved. We make provision for that in clause 5. I am happy to continue the dialogue with the hon. Members who have raised this point and I understand the deeper points that they wish to address. I hope, therefore, that we can reach a consensus that allows us to pursue the matter in a different manner to the amendments that we are discussing.
Government amendments 5, 6, 7, 8 and 26 will provide greater flexibility in how a mayor will be able to undertake their functions. The amendments are reasonably straightforward. Amendments 5 and 6 will provide greater flexibility and create greater capacity to enable a mayor to be supported in undertaking functions, where that is wanted locally. Amendments 7, 8 and 26 enable mayors of combined authorities, if it is specified by order, to exercise any of their general functions jointly with other authorities or combined authorities with the same functions, if they so choose. They enable a joint committee comprising the mayors of two combined authorities or a combined authority mayor and local authorities to exercise jointly shared functions across the area, thus providing greater flexibility in how mayors, combined authorities and local authorities can work together.
Finally, I will mention some minor and technical Government amendments. Amendments 30 and 31 insert provisions that enable an order to specify that local authority functions must be exercised jointly by the councils and the combined authority. Amendments 23, 24 and 25 relate to police and crime commissioners. They clarify the timing of an order that transfers PCC functions to an elected mayor; ensure that drafting on PCC functions is consistent; and ensure that, in line with the provisions for PCCs generally, a person acting in place of a mayor with PCC functions temporarily cannot carry out particular strategic functions, such as issuing a police and crime plan. Finally, Government amendment 15 will mean that the power to make regulations under clause 17 includes a power to make incidental, supplementary and consequential provision. Those are tidying-up amendments that are not controversial. I certainly have not detected that they are from the debate.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members, in the light of those explanations, will not press their amendments and will feel able to support the Government amendments.
Mr Nuttall
With the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), and having listened carefully to the Minister’s comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5
Functions
Amendments made: 5, page 4, line 26, at end insert “, or
(c) so far as authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State—
(i) for a person appointed as the deputy PCC mayor by virtue of an order under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2, or
(ii) for a committee of the combined authority, consisting of members appointed by the mayor (whether or not members of the authority),
to exercise any such function.
‘( ) An order under subsection (3)(c)(ii) may include provision—
(a) about the membership of the committee;
(b) about the member of the committee who is to be its chair;
(c) about the appointment of members;
(d) about the voting powers of members (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member);
(e) about information held by the combined authority that must, or must not, be disclosed to the committee for purposes connected to the exercise of the committee’s functions;
(f) applying (with or without modifications) sections 15 to 17 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on local authority committees etc).”
This amendment makes provision for a mayor to arrange for the person appointed as the deputy PCC mayor or a committee of the combined authority to exercise a general function which is exercisable by the mayor, if authorised to do so by an order made by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) in accordance with arrangements made by virtue of this section or section 107DA.”
This amendment provides for a general function exercisable by the mayor for the area of a combined authority to be taken to be a function exercisable by a committee or by the deputy PCC mayor, where arrangements have been made under provision inserted by amendment 5 or new section 107DA, inserted by amendment 8.
Amendment 7, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
“() provide that functions that the mayoral combined authority discharges in accordance with
arrangements under section 101(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 (discharge of local
authority functions by another authority) are to be treated as general functions exercisable by
the mayor (so far as authorised by the arrangements).”
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to provide by order that functions of a mayoral combined authority discharged in accordance with arrangements under section 101(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 are to be treated as general functions exercisable by the mayor of the authority.
Amendment 8, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“107DA Joint exercise of general functions
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for, or in connection with, permitting arrangements under section 101(5) of the Local Government Act 1972 to be entered into in relation to general functions of a mayor for the area of a combined authority.
(2) Provision under subsection (1) may include provision—
(a) for the mayor for the area of a combined authority to be a party to the arrangements in place of, or jointly with, the authority;
(b) about the membership of any joint committee;
(c) about the member of the joint committee who is to be its chair;
(d) about the appointment of members to a joint committee;
(e) about the voting powers of members of a joint committee (including provision for different weight to be given to the vote of different descriptions of member).
(3) Provision under subsection (2)(b) to (d) may include provision for the mayor or other persons—
(a) to determine the number of members;
(b) to have the power to appoint members (whether or not members of the combined authority or a local authority that is a party to the arrangements).
(4) Provision under subsection (2)(c) may include provision as to the circumstances in which appointments to a joint committee need not be made in accordance with sections 15 to 17 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political balance on local authority committees etc).
(5) In this section references to a joint committee are to a joint committee falling within section 101(5)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 that is authorised to discharge, by virtue of an order under this section, general functions of a mayor for the area of a combined authority.”—(James Wharton.)
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to make provision by order enabling the combined authority to enter into arrangements to discharge general functions of the mayoral combined authority jointly with one or more other local authorities or combined authorities.
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Mayors for combined authority areas: police and crime commissioner functions
Amendments made: 23, page 26, line 33, leave out
“police and crime commissioner functions”
and insert
“functions of a police and crime commissioner”
This amendment makes a minor drafting change to paragraph 1(1) of new Schedule 5C to achieve consistency with the language used in new section 107E(1) as inserted by clause 5 of the Bill (to which sub-paragraph (1) cross-refers).
Amendment 24, page 26, line 34, at end insert—
‘( ) A duty under this Schedule to make provision by order is a duty to make such provision in an order made at any time before the first election of a mayor who, by virtue of an order under section 107E(1), is to exercise functions of a police and crime commissioner.”
This amendment clarifies that an order made under new Schedule 5C can be made at any time before the relevant mayor is first elected and makes it plain that a Schedule 5C order can be made subsequently to an order under new section 107E.
Amendment 25, page 30, line 12, at end insert—
‘( ) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 107C, so far as relating to the exercise of PCC functions, are subject to any provision contained in an order under this Schedule.”—(James Wharton.)
This amendment ensures that an order under new Schedule 5C can make provision to prevent a person who is acting in place of a mayor with police and crime commissioner functions from carrying out particular PCC functions such as issuing or varying a police and crime plan, consistent with the current position in respect of actin PCCs.
Schedule 2, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Other public authority functions
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
I beg to move amendment 32, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
‘( ) See also section 19 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2015 (devolving health service functions) which contains further limitations.”
This amendment inserts a new subsection into section 105A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which alerts the reader to clause 19 of the Bill which contains limitations on the power to make an order under that section.
The Temporary Chair (Mrs Anne Main)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 33 to 38.
Clause 19 stand part.
Government new clause 8.
Government new schedule 1.
Alistair Burt
I think this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I am honoured to do so. Thank you for inviting me to speak this afternoon. As a former Member of Parliament for Bury North—a constituent part of the Greater Manchester devolution process—and a former sponsor Minister for the cities of Manchester, Salford, Wigan, Bolton and Blackburn, I am pleased to take part in this debate which has acute relevance to that part of the world.
May I too put on record my sadness at the loss of Michael Meacher? As a friend and colleague in the north-west for many years he performed great service for Oldham, and was a good colleague to his friends on all sides in the north-west. He will be much missed, and I am sure that the Committee sends its condolences to his family and all who mourn him.
Clause 19 contains valuable safeguards that will apply to the local devolution of health functions. It was inserted in the Bill by an amendment tabled by Lord Warner in another place. Amendments 32 to 38 will provide further definition and clarity, without altering the spirit or substance of the clause. Lord Warner has confirmed that he is supportive of these further amendments.
Clause 19 provides that regulations under clause 17, or an order under section 115A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, must not transfer any of the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the health service as set out in the National Health Service Act 2006 and the NHS constitution. It makes it clear that whatever devolution arrangements might be agreed with a particular area, the Secretary of State will remain bound by the key duties placed on him in respect of the health service.
Amendment 38 provides further clarity by listing the duties of the Secretary of State that may not be transferred, in so far as they are capable of such a transfer. First and foremost, section 1 of the 2006 Act provides for the Secretary of State to retain responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service in England. Others are overarching duties on quality, reducing health inequalities, research, education and training, and on the NHS constitution. They also include Secretary of State’s role under the Health Act 2009 in revising and publishing the NHS constitution, his role under the 2006 Act in setting strategic direction for the NHS in the mandate to NHS England, and his role in overseeing and reporting to Parliament on the health service generally, and in particular on NHS England’s performance.
In essence, although health service functions are capable of being devolved to local authorities and to groupings of local authorities, the main responsibility and overriding duty of the Secretary of State for the NHS is not affected by these arrangements and he remains accountable for them.
Mr Betts
I apologise, but I shall have to go to chair a meeting about black and minority ethnic coaches and managers in football, another issue that I know will be close to the Minister’s heart.
The Minister may be trying to reassure the Committee, but in some ways he is giving me cause for concern. Devolution deals will, in particular, try to link social care and health in a more real way to the benefit of constituents. My concern is that if every line of accountability goes back to the Secretary of State in Whitehall, it will stop local innovation happening. Will not the line of command back to the centre simply stop things happening?
Alistair Burt
That is a good question and I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. No, the whole process being considered is to give powers to the various authorities to be, as he said, innovative in what they would like to do. They will have the powers and the responsibilities to do that. The reason the concern was expressed in another place was to make sure that in the process it would not be possible for the NHS to transfer its core duties and therefore have local authorities do things that are contrary to the main constituent parts of the NHS, such as on issues relating to quality and so on. The accountability of the Secretary of State therefore remains. The ultimate accountability he or she has standing here at the Dispatch Box remains, but it would not stop the work and the innovation. As I shall go on to say, the regulatory powers of organisations such as the Care Quality Commission, Monitor and others will also remain in place to ensure that none of the national quality standards we expect from the NHS will be deviated from. There will be different ways of doing things, but ultimately the quality standard remains a national quality standard.
Mr Betts
I see what the Minister is trying to achieve, but I just worry about whether it will work like that in practice. Given that we are in very new territory here and that things will be done differently with the delegation of powers to individual authorities as well as to combined authorities, does the Minister agree that it would be a good idea, perhaps two years after the devolution powers have been put in place, to have a thorough review of how they are working and whether there is anything in the Government’s proposals that might actually stop devolution working properly?
Alistair Burt
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we can plan to review things at any stage. For devolution to work, the different models that may be put in place, whether big urban city models or more rural models, must of course pass the test of whether they are doing something qualitatively different and better for people. It will certainly be possible and necessary to review that. I think the concern has been to make sure that national standards are not dropped in the process of innovation. That is why the ultimate duty and responsibility of the Secretary of State remain. That was much discussed in another place. The reason for tabling these amendments is to confirm that, under the overall umbrella of wanting greater innovation, national standards will be preserved and cannot be threatened. That is the idea.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Would it be fair to say that local authorities rule on these matters, but that the Secretary of State might occasionally reign?
Alistair Burt
We must be clear. The Secretary of State’s overarching duty and responsibility for the NHS will not mean a definitive touch. The whole point of devolution, as indeed the whole point of integration of services between local authorities and the NHS, is to give people the powers to make their decisions locally. There will be much discussion between different constituent parts. In that, the Secretary of State will have no part. It will not be possible, however, for a devolved authority to neglect or remove a core part of the NHS and say, “Oh well, we’ve got the power to do so.” That is the reason for the safeguard to which the amendments and new clause 19 refer.
John Mann
Is there anything in the Government’s proposal that would impact on a district such as Bassetlaw —the hospital trust crosses the border into south Yorkshire, but the clinical commissioning group money remains entirely within the district—electing to join Sheffield city region, in another region, where other decisions will be needed? Are there any hidden nasties we should be aware of?
Alistair Burt
No, I do not think so. There are neither hidden nor unhidden nasties. Local decisions will still be made, and CCGs will still be monitored for quality, effectiveness and the like. I am just coming on to talk about the regulation.
Clause 19 provides that the regulatory functions of national bodies held in respect of health services will not be available for transfer to a combined or local authority. This makes it clear that local devolution settlements will not devolve the regulatory functions of Monitor, the Care Quality Commission or other health service national regulatory bodies as defined. This means that a transfer order may not change the way in which our national health service regulators operate to protect the interests and safety of patients. Amendment 38 inserts a provision clarifying that a “health service regulatory function” means a regulatory function within the meaning given by section 32 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, in relation to the health service. Amendment 35 omits the word “supervisory” but clarifies that the supervisory functions of NHS England in relation to CCGs are also expressly protected from transfer.
The safeguards set out in clause 19 would support the Secretary of State in ensuring in a transfer order that where a combined authority or local authority was to exercise transferred health functions, using the Bill’s new powers, that authority could be held to account as to the exercise of its health service functions, just as NHS commissioners are currently held accountable. Amendment 36 amends clause 19 to require that in a transfer of functions to a combined authority or a local authority, provision must be made about standards and duties to be placed on the authority.
Amendment 38 provides further explanation of the national service standards to which the Secretary of State must have regard when making such provision. These include, for example, those in the standing rules set for NHS England and CCGs, recommendations and quality standards published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and of course the standards set out in the NHS constitution, which sets out pledges and codifies requirements, statutory duties and rights that NHS services in England must, as a minimum, meet. These include national access standards, including waiting times. Amendment 38 also provides definitions for “national information obligations” and “national accountability obligations”.
As amended, clause 19 provides further clarity about the role of the Secretary of State for Health and what will and will not be included in any future transfer order giving local organisations devolved responsibility for health services. This clear statement in legislation, making provision for the protection of the integrity of the NHS, is intended to provide further confidence for future devolution deals. In essence, they will be underpinned by the basic core duties of the NHS, and that cannot be shifted. Amendments 32 to 38 give further definition and clarity to support the valuable principles behind this clause.
New schedule 1, which inserts schedule 3A in the Bill, provides for amendments to the National Health Service Act 2006, and new clause 8 is a clause to introduce that schedule. These amendments concern the making of arrangements with combined or local authorities for the exercise of health commissioning functions under the 2006 Act, including provisions allowing greater flexibility over how partners to such arrangements may work together. This will enable greater integration of health and care services and support local leaders to take collective steps towards better health and care for their local population.
New schedule 1 also makes small amendments to the 2006 Act concerning the provision that may be made in regulations concerning local authorities’ social care information.
Places such as Greater Manchester and Cornwall are calling for the ability to design and deliver better health and care services, and the ability to make decisions at a level that works best for their communities—locally or, where it makes more sense, at a regional or sub-regional level. As we know, devolution deals will be tailored to the needs and circumstances of a local area. The Bill will already allow the Government to make orders to devolve to a combined authority or a local authority a range of powers and functions currently carried out by Whitehall Departments or bodies such as NHS England.
Peter Dowd
I do not think anyone could disagree with the concept of maintaining standards, but when the Minister talks about what NHS England will be allowed or permitted to do, he needs to go further. The concept of subsidiarity is relevant. Powers should be devolved down, subject to standards, or there should be an onus, almost by default, on transferring responsibilities downwards rather than allowing bodies to pick and choose what they think should be devolved.
Alistair Burt
The order by which powers will be devolved will be subject to parliamentary approval. The safeguard is that the Secretary of State will have the power, as Parliament requests and demands, to put limitations on and conditions into that order. The reason there is no template for which powers must go downwards is that each area will probably have something different. The Bill provides a permissive opportunity for NHS powers to be devolved, but the powers to be devolved will depend on what each devolved administration is looking for. This part of the Bill sets out the ability of the Secretary of State and the NHS to achieve that, and the safeguard applies in respect of national qualities and standards and the regulatory process. The decision on which bits will be devolved down will be made by the Secretary of State and the NHS in consultation with the local areas that want the extra powers. I hope that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Peter Dowd
I would press for further clarity. I understand what the Minister says. The point I am trying to make is that if a local area says, “We think we are best able to provide particular services and responsibilities in a particular way” and NHS England, for example, says that it is not prepared to relinquish those responsibilities, we need a means of mediating that clearly and unambiguously. The assumption should be that the powers will go down to the local area if it wants them—subject to standards.
Alistair Burt
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not sure, however, that we can be more prescriptive on the face of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is describing the process by which an area says, “We think that, in addition to the functions already devolved, other things need to be devolved to help local health services work together”, but it is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which NHS England would say, “Well, no you can’t”. At the moment, most are working collectively in any case, so this is a matter for local decision making and agreement between the parties involved. I do not think we can say more than that directly in the Bill at this stage. The whole process of devolution will fall into disrepair if there is continual conflict between an area that says, “Look, we think we can do this”, and a central authority that says, “No, you can’t, there’s no point in that given the process we are going through”. The provision of safeguards is about ensuring that NHS England can be confident of devolving powers, because ultimately the regulatory powers and the safeguards should ensure that patients and constituents are protected by national standards remaining the same. That is how I envisage it working.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has talked a great deal about the safeguarding of NHS provision. Can he reassure me that the social care element will be protected by the same level of safeguards?
Alistair Burt
Yes, in that the regulatory powers of the CQC and the safeguarding inspection regime will be retained for the social care element that is covered by a devolution deal. Again, the whole point is to give as much flexibility as possible to areas that want to exercise their powers to deliver services differently, with the reassurance that there will no compromise in relation to key standards—not that that would be wished for in a local area, and not that it would be anticipated by any of the devolving powers.
Following discussions with Greater Manchester and other local areas, we are now taking the opportunity to make available further options in legislation for combined authorities and local authorities to work together with clinical commissioning groups and NHS England across a wider area—such as Greater Manchester—to improve the integration of services. Those options will sit alongside the powers provided by the Bill to devolve a range of powers and functions that are currently exercised by Whitehall departments or bodies such as NHS England to a combined authority or a local authority. Crucially, wherever responsibility for NHS functions is delegated or shared in this way, accountability will remain with the original function holder, whether that is NHS England or a CCG. The original NHS function holder will continue to be accountable via the existing mechanisms for oversight, which ultimately go to the Secretary of State, who retains ministerial responsibility to Parliament for the provision of the health service.
Andrew Gwynne
I apologise for the fact that I have only just come into the Chamber for this part of the debate. I have been on Front Bench duty in Westminster Hall.
I am interested in what the Minister is saying about the Secretary of State’s oversight of devolved health in Greater Manchester, which is clarifying one of the issues about which I know a number of Greater Manchester MPs are concerned. May I ask, however, whether any thought has been given to coterminosity? In the case of most of the functions that have been devolved to Greater Manchester, there are coterminous boundaries with the 10 metropolitan boroughs. The NHS is slightly different, in that one of the CCGs—one of my own CCGs, Tameside and Glossop—extends to Derbyshire as well, because Glossop is not part of Greater Manchester.
Alistair Burt
I know the area well, and I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Yes, that is part of the consideration, but it is essentially part of the consideration of the combined authority. Not only will it have to devise the working of its services within the confines of what is commonly known as Greater Manchester, but it will have to recognise that some of the provision of those services is carried out by those with cross-border responsibilities, and work something out with the adjoining areas. Nothing in the Bill speaks to that, because it does not relate to what I am discussing—the control of standards and the like—but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is part of the process that people will be going through.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will retain overall control.
Alistair Burt
I have read the report of the debates in the House of Lords on exactly this topic, because there was a lot of confusion. My understanding is that it depends on precisely what the breakdown is. Let us suppose that the breakdown, or failure, is in the way in which services have been put together by the combined authority. This is purely off the top of my head, and does not refer to anything of which I have any current knowledge. Let us suppose that there was a dispute between two constituent areas of Greater Manchester, one of which claimed that there was some inequity between the service that it was receiving and the service being received by the other. It might be claimed, for instance, that the combined authority’s decision was somehow disadvantaging Ramsbottom in favour of Bramhall. In the event of such a dispute, the buck would stop with those who were making the decisions locally, and that is the combined authority. The matter would not go anywhere near the Secretary of State. What the Secretary of State retains responsibility for is the standards and whether or not there has been a breach of NHS duties in relation to anything that falls within his own overall responsibility. So the buck still stops with the constituent authority that is delivering the service. In relation to a CCG that is not performing properly, the buck will stop with the CCG, not the combined authority. If there is a lapse of standards in anything connected with the NHS, ultimately the regulators govern that and the Secretary of State would be responsible. But if it is a decision being taken by those who are responsible for the new combined authority to do with where services go and it is within their remit, it will be a matter for them—the buck will stop with them. The short answer, therefore, is that where ultimately responsibility lies depends on where the breakdown is, but it is clear in relation to each of the services and it does not mean anyone can evade their responsibilities.
Andrew Gwynne
I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) had a better definition of what the Minister is trying to say. He said it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to set out the “what”, and the “how it is delivered locally” is for local commissioners or the combined authority in the case of Greater Manchester. The “what” remains with the Secretary of State; the “how” is devolved to the local area.
Alistair Burt
I think between the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. Friend, me and the Secretary of State we have probably got where we need to get to in relation to this. I wanted to make clear that there will not be a confusion of who is responsible for what; someone is ultimately responsible for each bit, but who is responsible in each particular case depends on where the breach is.
Jon Trickett
I want to return to the question of coterminosity, which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) referred to. In west Yorkshire, which is where I am from, the local Pontefract hospital goes across from west Yorkshire as far as York, almost—into Selby. If a combined authority with an elected mayor emerges in west Yorkshire, some of the hospital services for which that person will be responsible will be provided to people who have not had the opportunity to vote for him or her as mayor or for the combined authority. Where does accountability lie? Here is a situation where somebody is responsible for services outwith the area that has elected him.
Alistair Burt
If the mayor was to have responsibility for the services—that is not the proposal for Greater Manchester—the mayor would only have responsibility for the services within the combined area. Anything beyond that would still fall within the remit of those who commissioned services in that area. The decision as to—[Interruption.] That is right: the hospital in that circumstance may well have two bosses because the CCG would be responsible for the whole lot and it would have to come, by agreement, to a decision as to what was being provided within the combined area as well as outside the combined area. So the CCG remains responsible for what it is delivering, but it decides as normal with those to whom it is answerable—in one area it has become a different authority and in another it remains the original one—what services they should provide. The overall security for the quality of what the CCG is providing is maintained by the national regulator, which supervises, and it is ultimately for the Secretary of State to make sure the NHS guidance and duties are not breached, but it is a matter for local decision how this coterminosity is dealt with, because it will occur in more than one area. Certainly, however, I cannot see that legally a CCG outside a combined authority could have any direct line of responsibility to somebody inside the combined authority who is making decisions not about their area. That is how that would work.
Jon Trickett
If there are two adjacent mayoral operations, both taking responsibility for a hospital that is crossing the mayoral boundaries—which is now quite possible it seems to me—is not that a recipe for complex management for the people managing the hospital, and how would those contradictions be resolved?
Alistair Burt
In the first place, they could decide not to devolve at all. Part of the process will involve those in the combined authority and in those authorities next to each other deciding how to deliver the services. There is a choice. This is all voluntary, and if people want to do it they will work out a way. It is not very different from what has driven the authorities in Greater Manchester together in the first place. These are places that work across boundaries, and agreement will have to be reached on the delivery of the services. Constituents in one area could say, “Hold on a minute! Are we going to lose out over this?” They will make their decisions collectively on what they will pool and what they want. That is no different from what will happen in the areas that will be split. If people cannot agree, there will not be an order that could possibly be signed off. This will work only when there is a conviction that people have made the appropriate decisions. That is a matter for local agreement, and that is where all of us, as local politicians, get involved. So unless people are convinced that the processes are right, there will be no point in signing anything off.
Karin Smyth
I welcome the devolution of some health and care services to local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) recalled our manifesto pledges for the “what” and the “how”, and I have a lot of concerns about the structural changes that might come as a result of all this. As has been mentioned, Bristol, an area of nearly half a million people surrounded by more rural areas, has two major acute hospitals, both of which offer a range of services, including highly specialised ones. I would like the Minister to say something on the issue of specialised commissioning. Patients are drawn from across the south-west; one hospital draws half its patients from Bristol and the other half from neighbouring South Gloucestershire. Two different clinical commissioning groups are involved, and a plethora of different organisations are involved in both the commissioning and the provision of services. In an earlier exchange on this type of devolution, the Minister sometimes talked about the provision of services and sometimes about the commissioning of services. It would be helpful to understand the devolution aspects: are we talking about provision in the new marketplace or about commissioning, and how will we bring those two things together? That is problematic for us in Bristol.
I am a former board member of a primary care trust and I spent many happy hours discussing the correct configuration of primary care and CCGs in Bristol—whether it should be a stand-alone Bristol or not. We started off with Bristol divided into two and we then talked about doughnuts. The Minister missed an earlier discussion involving the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who wanted to make sure that Bristol stayed Bristol and did not include other areas. [Interruption.] That was a shame, because it is always a joy. We never quite resolved that issue, and similar issues are applicable to many other cities and city regions. I fear that the approach being taken could make an already difficult situation for Bristol much more difficult.
The Minister and I were both at the King’s Fund discussion last week about devolution and health, and I think it was people from Manchester who talked about the fact that they had to bring 38 different organisations around the table to talk about some of these matters. My concerns relate to further structural reorganisation. Given the organisations involved and given the situation in Bristol, I wonder how I, as a patient on my pathway from prevention through primary care to community services, hospital care and possibly specialised services, would understand who is really accountable for that pathway. As we know, we can map a pathway but people do not always map closely to that. In general, I welcome this move, but of course we have concerns about financial stability, particularly of those hospitals and of wider community services. At last week’s King’s Fund event, as was quietly pointed out, we do not want a situation where money is moved from GP services into fixing potholes. We need to be very concerned about such things.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I rise to make a few brief remarks in support of this clause and the Government amendments. Clearly, the direction of travel that is outlined is desirable in health and care terms. The amendments will put in place clear safeguards to deal with national regulatory structures, which are there to protect patients and to ensure that the quality of care is universally high throughout the whole country.
The importance of devolving health and care at a local level is something that we have often talked about in this place, but we have sometimes struggled to find the legislative mechanisms to make it happen. These powers will be a desirable step forward in encouraging a more integrated model of health and care. We often talk about how we can move the focus in many parts of our health service towards delivering more services in the community and a more preventative approach to healthcare. Clearly, this Bill is a big step in that direction.
By 2018, we know that there will be 3 million people with three or more long-term health conditions. Many of those people will require support not just from the health service, but from adult social care services, local voluntary and charitable organisations and, in the case of some people with special educational needs, education services. It is vital that we properly link and join up the services that are in place to support these people. Personalised care and mechanisms of support are often found at a local level, which is exactly what this devolution is about.
Other measures have been put in place to integrate better adult health and social care, including the better care fund, which was part of the Care Act 2104. The coalition Government also introduced some strong measures to improve the provision for children with special educational needs. But these measures go further and allow more bespoke and personalised local solutions to be put in place to support people with more complex care needs. Importantly, they also recognise that parts of the country are different in terms of not just their geography, but their cultural make up and their demographics. That is particularly important when we talk about devolving health and care. We know that some city areas have high black and minority ethnic populations with specific healthcare needs. These measures will put us in a much better place to help such areas support those communities, as well as more rural areas, in dealing with the challenges of an ageing population and increasing numbers of people with complex healthcare needs.
This Bill is an important step forward, which builds on many strong measures that have already been put in place over the past few years by both the coalition Government and the previous Labour Government. We all believe in integration and in the need to bring healthcare services closer to the individual and make them more personalised. We know that there is too much duplication in the health service and in adult social care, which costs money. That money should be going to the frontline, but duplication often gets in the way of front-line professionals helping patients. This is a big step forward in allowing local health economies and local areas to put in place the right mechanisms to support the people they look after.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
First, let me echo the words of the Minister and pay my own tribute to my colleague, Michael Meacher, who sadly died today. I was born and bred in his constituency, so he was my MP for a long number of years. He was greatly respected in the constituency and will be very, very sadly missed.
I wish to start by echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) who said that we need to get this Bill right. The proposals for health devolution raise a great number of questions, which I hope we will deal with in a constructive manner, as we need positive outcomes. Labour Members are concerned about overlapping areas, coterminosity, and cross-border responsibilities, and they have been highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Bristol South (Karin Smyth). We need some clarity about how the devolved responsibilities will work in practice.
Alistair Burt
I thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) for putting the Opposition’s case clearly and providing me with an opportunity to explain why these measures are so important and, I hope, give reassurance. I start by reminding the Committee that this is an enabling Bill, so nothing in it will force anybody to do anything. Ultimately, if local areas want to take the opportunity to apply for devolution, including the devolution of health services, they can do so, but they will not be forced to do so. Control and standards will be exercised by Parliament in securing the deals. Within that wide remit, I will come to the hon. Lady’s questions, but first let me answer a few specific points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—I thank him for the work he did in the Department, which I follow—in a way put both sides of the argument. In a sense, the Government cannot decide some of the issues that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady raised. My hon. Friend believes that where these opportunities are used for greater integration and for the best, services will be smoother and able to deliver more locally what people want. Of course, as the hon. Lady pointed out, there will be disputes within each individual area about what might be best for it. A devolution deal will make sense only if decisions have been taken locally and agreement has been reached on how to move forward. If not, I cannot imagine the hon. Lady or her area wanting to support them. Central Government cannot make all the decisions that will ultimately be taken by a group of authorities working together. Some of that will have to be decided locally, rather than at the centre. I will talk in a moment about the check that is made before anyone agrees to transfer anything.
Let me make specific reference to specialised services, which are of particular interest to the hon. Member for Bristol South. NHS England may make arrangements with local partners for the commissioning of specialised services. Those arrangements will be subject to NHS England having regard to certain considerations on their appropriateness in the particular commissioning area. They might involve delegation to local partners, or NHS England might decide to work together with its local partners, who must include at least one clinical commissioning group and a combined authority, or at least one local authority. In all cases, the local partners in an arrangement must exercise the function jointly. That will allow local commissioners to shape services to best meet the needs of their local populations and make it easier to integrate specialist services with other health and social care services. However, NHS England will remain accountable for the delivery of specialised services. It will remain bound by its existing duties to promote the NHS constitution on reducing health inequalities and on effectiveness and efficiency, and to exercise its functions with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services, along with its other overarching duties. NHS England has confirmed that it will be part of any arrangements concerning specialised standards, but national service standards that it sets for the provision of these services will continue to be required. Although there is provision in the Bill to devolve certain specialised services, the control, security and safeguards of the NHS remain. However, it will be possible if it is considered the right thing to do.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for that clarification. My concern then would be who the Minister sees as driving the development and improvement of, particularly, the specialised commissioners. We are talking in fairly transactional terms about who might be contracting or who might be accountable but, as he will appreciate, these services, as well as others, require a long lead-in time and a lot of consideration owing to their very technical and, by definition, specialised nature. Who is driving this forward—the local group, if they so choose, who may not have the expertise, or the Department?
Alistair Burt
NHS England and the Department must retain the overall control of the quality of the specialised services, and that will not be relinquished if there is no sense that they can be handled any better, because otherwise there is no point. The number of specialised services that are devolved might ultimately be very few. Of course, there is only any point in devolving them if they are going to improve, and that must be demonstrated before they are devolved and moved on.
Let me say a little about the wider concern of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton that by devolving these powers and running with the grain of greater devolution, we are losing the “national” in the national health service. We are absolutely determined that that will not be the case. The safeguards that are now in the Bill as a result of concerns expressed elsewhere were never going to be lost, but they are now made more explicit to demonstrate that what she worries about cannot happen. It is not the case that an authority will apply for these powers and they will be handed over without no further consideration, because there is the transfer order that Parliament will be involved in.
What are the Government going to think about when people ask to do this? The Government have invited local areas to develop their own proposals. There is no blueprint for the devolution of health and social care. The substance of devolution deals will be determined on a case-by-case basis, with Government agreeing bespoke deals that correspond to the needs and specific context of each area. There are some important preconditions that we might expect to support the development of local devolution deals, including health and social care. These include a clear vision for the benefits to the local area; a history of successful collaboration and partnership working; support and input from local health and social care organisations for the proposals being put forward; a strong commitment to further engagement with local patients and communities as plans develop; upholding the standards set out in national guidance; and continuing to meet statutory requirements and duties, including the NHS constitution and the Government’s mandate to NHS England. Most importantly, the first overarching principle of any agreement is that all areas will remain part of the NHS. This requirement to adhere to the constitution of the NHS and the ultimate safeguard of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities answers the point about a local area getting hold of NHS money and then deciding to build a new leisure centre. It would not be able to do that because it would not be complying with its duties under the NHS. It would fail and the duties and responsibilities would soon be taken away. That is why the safeguard is there.
To deal with the hon. Lady’s concerns about potential confusion, let me say a little more about the role of NHS England under devolved arrangements. NHS England and CCGs would continue to be bound by their duties under the National Health Service Act 2006 even after devolution of functions. For example, NHS England will remain bound by duties to promote the NHS constitution, and to exercise its functions effectively, efficiently and economically and with a view to securing continuous improvement in the quality of services, including in terms of outcomes.
NHS England must exercise its functions having regard to the need to reduce inequalities in relation to both access to health services and outcomes achieved for patients. When NHS England exercises its functions, it must also promote the involvement of patients and their carers and representatives in decisions made about diagnosis, prevention and care and treatment. It must take appropriate advice and act with a view to enabling patients to make choices with respect to aspects of the health service provided to them.
Those safeguards show that the powers simply cannot be devolved to people who want them without any check or balance on how they would exercise them, even if they persuade people locally that signing a blank cheque for help is in any way acceptable. I cannot see local representatives agreeing to that. That is where the control comes in.
How will the Department of Health and NHS England be involved in agreeing the deals? We have been working closely with other Government Departments to respond to proposals. NHS England has developed its own set of assessment criteria, by which it will assess the potential of proposals from a particular local area. It is not an automatic process: if the deal will not work in terms of the quality of healthcare provided, the House will not pass a transfer order because the proposal will not pass the test set by NHS England and the Department of Health.
Will devolution mean that local areas can set their own strategy for NHS capital estates and management? No, we do not envisage any changes to capital financing and asset ownership.
Finally, I want to address a very important issue raised by the hon. Lady. Who will have the final say over the opening and closing of hospitals and other services? This is issue concerns every single one of us in the Chamber. Reconfiguration of NHS services will continue to be a matter for the local NHS. However, proposals for service change must meet the Government’s four tests: support from local GP commissioners; clarity on the clinical evidence base; robust patient and public engagement; and support for patient choice. The same elements of contest available when reconfiguration has been proposed will remain even after devolution, so nothing is taken away.
I hope that has been helpful. Working with the grain of what people want, we all think this is a better idea, but there are safeguards to make sure that people’s worries will not come to fruition.
Amendment 32 agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Power to transfer etc. public authority functions to certain local authorities
Amendment made: 33, page 17, line 32, at end insert—
‘( ) See also section 19 (devolving health service functions) which contains further limitations.”—(Alistair Burt.)
This amendment inserts a new subsection into clause 17 which alerts the reader to clause 19 which contains limitations on the power to make regulations under that clause.
Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Section 17: procedure etc.
Amendment made: 15, page 18, line 6, after “make” insert “incidental, supplementary, consequential,”—(Alistair Burt.)
This amendment provides that the power to make regulations under clause 17 of the Bill includes a power to make incidental, supplementary and consequential provision.
Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Devolving health service functions
Amendments made: 34, page 18, leave out lines 29 to 33 and insert—
‘(1) Regulations under section 17 of this Act or an order under section 105A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (transfer of public authority functions to combined authorities) (“the 2009 Act”)—
(a) must not transfer any of the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the health service;”
This amendment confines the limitations contained in clause 19 to the exercise of the power to make regulations under clause 17 or an order under section 105A of Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. Those powers concern the transfer of public authority functions to local or combined authorities. New clause 19(1)(a) prevents those powers being used to transfer any of the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the health service (as defined in clause 19(2) which is inserted by Amendment 38).
Amendment 35, page 18, line 34, leave out “or supervisory”
This amendment removes the prohibition in clause 19(b) on the transfer of health service supervisory functions of national bodies by regulations under clause 17 or an order under section 105A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
Amendment 36, page 18, line 36, leave out from “must” to first “the” in line 37 and insert
“, if transferring functions relating to the health service to a local authority or a combined authority, make provision about the standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to”
This amendment and Amendment 37 replace the limitation in clause 19(c) with a requirement that regulations under clause 17 or an order under section 105A of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 which transfer functions relating to the health service to a local or combined authority must make provision about the standards and duties to be placed on that authority having regard to certain standards and obligations placed on the authority responsible for the functions being transferred.
Amendment 37, page 18, line 38, leave out from “on” to “being” in line 39 and insert
“the authority responsible for the functions”
See the statement for Amendment 36.
Amendment 38, page 18, line 40, at end insert—
‘(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), “the Secretary of State’s core duties in relation to the health service” means the duties of the Secretary of State under—
(a) sections 1 to 1G of the National Health Service Act 2006 (“the NHSA 2006”) (duty to promote comprehensive health service etc.),
(b) sections 6A to 6BB of that Act (duties regarding the reimbursement of costs of services provided in another EEA state),
(c) section 12E of that Act (duty as respects variation in provision of health services),
(d) sections 13A, 13B, 13U and 223B of that Act (duties regarding mandate to, and annual report and funding of, the NHS Commissioning Board),
(e) section 247C of that Act (duty to keep health service functions under review),
(f) section 247D of that Act (duty to publish annual report on performance of the health service in England),
(g) section 258 of that Act (duty regarding the availability of facilities for university clinical teaching and research), and
(h) sections 3 to 6 of the Health Act 2009 (duties in relation to the NHS Constitution and the Handbook to it),
in so far as those duties would (apart from subsection (1)(a)) be transferable by regulations under section17 or an order under section 105A of the 2009 Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)—
(a) “health service regulatory function” means a function in relation to the health service which is a regulatory function within the meaning given by section 32 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006,
(b) the functions of the National Health Service Commissioning Board under sections 14Z16 to 14Z22 of the NHSA 2006 (assessment of clinical commissioning groups and intervention powers) are to be treated as “health service regulatory functions” in so far as they do not fall within the definition in paragraph (a), and
(c) functions exercisable by a body by virtue of directions given under section 7 of the NHSA 2006 (functions of Special Health Authorities) are not “vested in” that body.
(4) But subsection (1)(b) does not prevent the transfer of functions of the National Health Service Commissioning Board which—
(a) arise from arrangements under section 1H(3)(a) of the NHSA 2006 (provision of services for the purpose of the health service), and
(b) relate to those providing services under those arrangements.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), “national service standards” means the standards contained in any of the following—
(a) the NHS Constitution (within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Health Act 2009);
(b) the standing rules under section 6E of the NHSA 2006 (regulations as to the exercise of functions by the NHS Commissioning Board or clinical commissioning groups);
(c) the terms as to service delivery required by regulations or directions under the NHSA 2006 for contracts or other arrangements for the provision of primary medical services, primary dental services, primary ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services under Part 4, 5, 6 or 7 of that Act;
(d) the recommendations or guidance of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence made or given pursuant to regulations under section 237 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012;
(e) the quality standards prepared by that Institute under section 234 of that Act;
(f) the guidance published under section 14Z8 of the NHSA 2006 (guidance on commissioning by the NHS Commissioning Board);
and such standards are “placed on” a body if the body is required to have regard to or comply with them.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c)—
(a) “national information obligations” means duties regarding the obtaining, retention, use or disclosure of information, and
(b) “national accountability obligations” means duties (for example, those to keep accounts or records, or to provide or publish reports, plans or other information) which enable the management of a body, or the way in which functions are discharged, to be examined, inspected, reviewed or studied.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a function is transferred by regulations under section 17 or by an order under section 105A of the 2009 Act, if—
(a) provision is made under subsection (1)(a) of the section in question for the function to be the function of a local authority or a combined authority, or
(b) provision is made under subsection (1)(b) of that section for a function corresponding to the function to be conferred on a local authority or a combined authority.
(8) Nothing in this section prevents the conferral on a local authority or a combined authority of duties to have regard to, or to promote or secure, the matters mentioned in sections 1 to 1F of the NHSA 2006 when exercising a function transferred to it by regulations under section 17, or by an order under section 105A of the 2009 Act.
(9) In this section, “the health service” has the meaning given by section 275(1) of the NHSA 2006.”—(Alistair Burt.)
This amendment adds provision to clause 19 which defines terms used in, and clarifies the scope of, the limitations contained in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the clause.
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 10
Funding of combined authorities
Amendment made: 9, page 11, line 26, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 105 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (constitution and functions of combined authorities: economic development and regeneration), omit subsection (4).”—(Alistair Burt.)
This amendment removes the restriction on orders under section 105 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 only being able to make provision in relation to the costs of a combined authority that are reasonably attributable to the exercise of its functions relating to economic development and regeneration.
Amendment proposed: 58, page 11, line 26, at end insert—
‘(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for conferring powers on a combined authority to set multi-year finance settlements.” —(Jon Trickett.)
This amendment is intended to offer financial stability to city regions, allowing them long-term planning which is something not currently offered by the finance settlement or the funding of local enterprise partnership (LEPs).
“‘combined authority | section 275(1)’” |
Business without Debate
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Human Rights (Joint Committee)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I welcome the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) to her place.
The motion seeks to approve the House of Commons members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I have said, these names have been agreed by the Committee of Selection, and they would join the Members of the House of Lords who were appointed by that House on 16 July 2015. The motion is being considered tonight, under Standing Order No. 15(1)(c), having been objected to when it was first put to the House on Monday 14 September.
This is an important Committee that in the previous Parliament considered issues such as UK compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child, human rights judgments and violence against women and girls, as well as undertaking pre and post-legislative scrutiny of many Bills. I therefore encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to support this motion. I commend it to the House.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Michael Meacher, who died today. We seem to be in the business just now of losing a number of people who were giants of this House in the 1970s and 1980s. We wish to make sure he will be remembered as an assiduous and hard-working Member of Parliament.
Let me say at the outset that we have no issue at all with the establishment of a Committee on human rights: this House should of course have a Committee on human rights. It will have a lot of important work to do, some of which has been mentioned by the Minister. We want a Committee on human rights to be established as soon as possible. It has important business to take care of, and we support its establishment. I do not have a problem with the proposed members on the Order Paper. I am sure they will be assiduous members and work to the best of their abilities to ensure that the Committee carries out its functions. I do not even have a problem with this being a Joint Committee, although I am perplexed as to why the unelected House down the road is being given parity with elected Members—those of us who bother to go to our constituents to seek a mandate to serve in the House. Why are the unelected Members, who represent absolutely nobody, being given equal membership with the elected Members who represent real constituents the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?
No, my objection to the motion is the fact that the third party of the United Kingdom has no place on the Committee. That has never happened before. In the last Parliament, how many people from the third party were on the Committee? Two. There were two Liberals on it, one from this House and one from the unelected place down the road. We have made great progress, as the third party, in this House. We are on practically every institution in the House. I have just come from the Speaker’s Commission on the Electoral Commission. We have served on all these Committees assiduously as hard-working Members. We are on practically every single Committee of the House. We even get to chair some of them—I chair one.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I do not recollect the hon. Gentleman’s party opposing the Committee’s being a Joint Committee in the last Parliament. None the less, in the last Parliament the Liberal Democrats polled 23% of the popular vote, whereas his party polled 4% across the whole UK. Is that not the difference?
Pete Wishart
This is astounding. My party supports proportional representation. I am pretty certain the hon. Gentleman does not. We operate under the electoral system designed for this place, and it is called first past the post. We won 56 of 59 seats in Scotland, and we are the third party of the UK, in terms of membership of the House and party membership across the UK.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Is this not a preposterous argument, given that all Divisions in the House are based on membership of the House, not the vote in the country? Otherwise, Committee membership could be very different. The Conservative party got a lot less than 50% of the vote in the UK, yet has the majority of members on the Committee.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot understand it. We are allowed on practically every institution and Committee of the House, and we are prepared to serve assiduously on them. We want to be part of this Committee. We have something to contribute. Why are we being excluded? Why is the House happy with our exclusion?
Dr Coffey
I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the second Opposition party in the last Parliament was the Democratic Unionist party, because the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. As for the Committee, this House gets six members and the other place has six. He will be aware that when Committees get to seven or above, that is when the second Opposition party gains a seat.
Pete Wishart
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, but here is an obvious solution: why not change the rules? Why are we bound to having parity with the unelected, absurd House down there, which represents absolutely nobody? She represents a constituency, and I represent a constituency. We represent real people and have an interest in a Committee of this place; they represent absolutely nobody. It is an absurd and ridiculous institution that should have no parity with this House.
There are 12 places on this Committee. There are six Conservative Members and four Labour Members. Who is next? There is one Liberal Democrat and one Cross Bencher. Now, we have just had an election, and the Liberal Democrats, roundly thrashed and rejected by the vast majority of the country, were left with a rump of eight MPs. Yet the Liberal Democrats have been given a place on this Committee, ahead of the third party of the United Kingdom—the Scottish National party with a 56-seat victory in the last election. How can that possibly be right?
There is even a Cross Bencher on the Joint Committee. I do not even know what Cross Benchers do. I think they are somehow supposed to be neutral or arbitrary, and are appointed on the basis of the greatness and goodness they bring, but why is a Cross Bencher ahead of directly elected Members from the third party of this House? I ask again, how can this possibly be right?
What really gets me about this affair is that this Committee is vitally important. Mr Speaker, I know that you take a keen interest in the working of the Joint Committee. It exists to scrutinise Government Bills for compatibility with human rights, to scrutinise the Government’s response to judgments on human rights and, importantly, it looks for opportunities to enhance human rights across the United Kingdom. Surely this House wants the third party of the UK to play a part in that process. I simply cannot understand why it would not want that to happen.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a good case regarding the democratic outrage that the people of Scotland will feel at being excluded from discussion of a matter about which they feel extremely strongly. Is it not also the case that the proposal takes no account of a new situation—namely, that for first time in our history, the third party in this House does not, as a matter of political principle, seek representation in the other place? That puts us at a double disadvantage when it comes to Joint Committees of both Houses.
Pete Wishart
That is such a good point, and I am coming on to it. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that we do not take places in the House of Lords. If it is necessary to be an elected Lord to get on an important Committee of this House, where does that leave democracy in this country? How can people who have no democratic mandate—they have been elected by absolutely nobody—take precedence over elected Members of this House? We are being placed in a ridiculous and absurd situation. If the only way to get on the Committee is to take places in an unelected House of Lords, most people would regard that as an absurd situation.
Mike Weir
Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is actually worse than that? Only this week, it appears that the Government have been threatening to suspend the House of Lords because it did not want to accept what the Government wanted to do with tax credits. Now, however, the other place is more important than us when it comes to membership of this important Committee.
Dr Coffey
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I recognise that SNP Members are having a debate, but we are supposed to be discussing Members from the House of Commons who are going to sit on this Committee. Membership of the House of Lords is a different matter and one for the other end of the corridor.
Mr Speaker
In establishing the background to, and context of, the present debate, it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to say something about factors that he thinks might be informing—rightly or wrongly, in his judgment—the composition of the Committee. However, there is a difference between establishing the context and a tendency to dilate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to dilate on the matter of the Lords make-up of this Committee, or to theorise about the possible injurious effect on SNP chances of being on that Committee as a consequence of not taking up seats in the House of Lords. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman should be concerned is the Commons contribution to, and Commons Members of, this Joint Committee, which I think is quite sufficient for his eloquent dilation.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. All we want is to sit on this Committee. We want to play a meaningful role in the assessing and scrutinising of human rights. Apparently, the only way we can get on it is to take up places in the House of Lords.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Talking about Members of this House sitting on the Committee, it is interesting to note that there is no representation for the House of Commons’ third party. Given that the Human Rights Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom, I would argue that it is critical for our party, elected en masse by the people of Scotland, to have a voice on this Committee.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is quite right: the Committee will have a huge amount of work to do. The Conservative Government are threatening to do away with the European convention on human rights—they are threatening to take us out of it—and now we shall not have an opportunity to scrutinise the issue in the Joint Committee.
Moreover—I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) will mention this in her speech—the human rights settlement is profoundly important to the devolution settlement in Scotland. It is built into the very mechanics of the Scottish Parliament. No Bill can be passed in the Scottish Parliament without reference to human rights, but no Scottish Member of the House of Commons is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Indeed, it has no members from north of Derby.
Mr Jackson
I think that one would have to have a heart of stone not to feel for the hon. Gentleman. His selflessness on this occasion is quite touching. However, I am trying to follow his logic. Is he suggesting, notwithstanding what the Deputy Leader of the House has said, that we should suspend the Standing Orders specifically to ameliorate the effects of a policy decision by the Scottish National party not to play any part in representation in the House of Lords?
Pete Wishart
Let us look at the House of Commons membership of the Joint Committee. We have no representation as the third party in the House of Commons, although we are represented on practically every other Committee in the House. We have 56 of the 59 Scottish seats in Parliament, but no attempt has been made to reflect a geographical spread in securing membership of the Joint Committee.
Let me suggest a couple of ways in which we might be able to rectify the situation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will listen carefully. She, or someone, will have to tell me why there must be parity with the House of Lords. The House of Lords has never been held in such contempt as it is now among the British people, who see it as nothing other than an affront to democracy and a repository for donors and cronies in the United Kingdom parties.
I need to know this, Mr Speaker. Why does the Joint Committee have to have six members from this House and six from that House? Surely we could come up with an arithmetical formulation that would allow an input from the Lords? I want to hear from them, because I think that they have a contribution to make. Why can we not have eight members from this House and nine members from that House, and cut the number from the House of Lords correspondingly? Is there anyone in the Chamber now—and I look to the Deputy Leader of the House—who can tell me why that cannot happen? Surely it is up to this House, as the predominant and the elected House, to set the rules and parameters for the Joint Committee.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that that is what is provided for by the Standing Orders currently in place. If we wish to change the Standing Orders, why do we not seek to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee? The Standing Orders are under our control, but we cannot change them tonight.
Pete Wishart
That is actually quite a reasonable suggestion from the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, studies these issues very closely and carefully. Why do we not change the Standing Orders? Will someone tell me why we cannot do that? Why is the third party in the United Kingdom excluded because of a binding commitment to the Standing Orders of the House? Let us change them. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. If he tables a motion, he will have the support of members of the Scottish National party.
Mike Weir
May I point out that we shall debate a proposal to change the Standing Orders tomorrow—because of another thing that the Government wish to do—and that that was proposed even before it was referred to the Procedure Committee? It can be done: we can change Standing Orders.
Pete Wishart
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We could change the Standing Orders at any time, and we shall be changing them tomorrow in order to diminish the rights of Scottish Members of Parliament. Within 24 hours, we shall find that our rights in the House have been diminished to second class—and we are being denied a place on the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I am sure that the people of Scotland are observing what is happening down here, and the way in which Scottish Members of Parliament are being treated in this House. I am sure that they are reaching their own conclusions about what is being done to Scottish Members in this place. Just because we are the third party in the House and it is not the Liberals this time, it is apparently all right to exclude us—but it is not on, and I am pretty certain that the Scottish people are observing, very darkly, the way in which Scottish Members are being treated in this House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am a member of the Procedure Committee, and, if it would be helpful, I will take this matter up with the Committee. I will suggest to the Chairman that we produce a report, and that the SNP is represented on the Joint Committee.
Pete Wishart
I thank the hon. Gentleman. We are starting to make progress—we are starting to get there now. What we are seeing from the hon. Gentleman is agreement that an injustice has been done. Would that be a fair characterisation? I am looking at hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, and they are thinking about that, and I think most of them are tentatively agreeing with that premise. What we have here is something that is unsuitable, unfair and inappropriate and which now needs to be resolved. We have already had a couple of suggestions for tackling this—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his suggestion and ask him to just tell his Front Benchers to start supporting this, too.
I have no idea what Labour Front Benchers think about this, and I am certain one of them will make a contribution, but surely Labour would want us as colleagues on that Committee? Why do they want the Liberals on it, for goodness’ sake? Surely they are better with the third party in this House having a place on it.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
When I served on a Joint Committee considering a mental health Bill covering Wales, the representation from this House was 24—not 12—including me, and it was considered appropriate for someone from Wales to be on the Committee. That same principle should apply as far as Scotland is concerned in this case.
Pete Wishart
That is another helpful suggestion. I sense I am getting a bit of support. Would that be fair? I am looking at my Labour colleagues. No, we are not; well, what do we expect from Labour? At least the Conservatives are beginning to see there is something profoundly wrong with what is being proposed. I think the Labour Front Bench would rather have unelected Liberals on this Joint Committee than the third party of the United Kingdom.
Mr Chope
It is unfortunate that the SNP did not table an amendment to include one of its Members instead of one of the Labour representatives—that might have made for an interesting debate and vote afterwards. At the moment, however, the SNP proposal is to vote down this Committee proposal completely, which is surely absurd because it means the Joint Committee on Human Rights will not be established in good time.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to the intervention, it may benefit the House to know the factual position as I understand it, which is that it would have been perfectly possible for anybody to table an amendment to the list of names proposed, but an amendment beyond that would not have been in order, because other than in respect of the names it is not an amendable motion.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful for that ruling, Mr Speaker, and clarification. It was also my understanding of the position.
Sensing a degree of support for what we are trying to do, I appeal to the Government not to put this to the House tonight, but to take it away and then come back. Let us have a look at this properly. They should come and speak to the SNP. We will propose a membership change. If necessary, the Government can get them in from down the road—get the unelected ones up, have a conversation with them, get an arrangement and agreement whereby the unelected donors and cronies could still have their places on the Joint Committee. We want to hear from them as some of them are very eminent—some of them are very good donors—and we want to hear their views, but should they have parity with this House? No, they should not. The public observe what goes on in this place with ever deeper cynicism. When they see unelected donors and cronies having parity with elected Members, they see something fundamentally rotten with our democracy.
Of course the third party should be on this Committee. Let us make sure that that happens. We must do whatever it takes. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take this motion away, and come back and speak to us. We will provide a name. Let us get this resolved and fixed. For the sake of democracy, let us get this sorted.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Following the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), may I also pay tribute to Michael Meacher? The work he did, particularly in my experience with Parliament First, is a lasting legacy and demonstrated his great commitment to this place. One of the great things about the proposals before us tonight is that many of those being chosen to serve on this Joint Committee are people like Michael Meacher, who have independent minds. That is what this House needs on such Committees.
I suggest that we pass this motion tonight, because if we do not we will be unable to set up the Joint Committee. It is a matter of regret, given that their lordships’ House named its people back in July, that we are only now naming ours. Once the Committee is set up, the Procedure Committee could look into the issues and I am sure that it could produce a report in due course. It would be unfortunate if this situation were to be used as a stick with which to beat the rest of the United Kingdom. I say that as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee; I have the privilege of serving under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and we had a successful visit to Dundee earlier this week.
I want to thank the Scottish National party for ensuring that we have had a debate on this important issue. We debate human rights, and the parliamentary scrutiny of human rights, all too rarely. I have had the privilege of serving in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for some 10 years, during which I spent two years as chairman of the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee. During that time, the United Kingdom had the chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and a lot of work was done jointly with the Joint Committee on Human Rights to spread the good word across the other 47 member states of the Council of Europe on how Parliaments can scrutinise work of their Governments in relation to human rights. It is fair to say that this Parliament is an exemplar for the Parliaments in those other member countries. I have spoken about this at seminars. It is important that, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights looks at the convention, it should do so in an independent way. One consequence of that happening can be a significant reduction in the number of cases that end up in the European Court of Human Rights. I suggest that that is really important.
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend does himself a disservice. Not only has he served as a distinguished chairman of the migration and legal affairs committees of the Council of Europe but he is also the chairman of the European Conservatives group. He has done sterling work on keeping that group together. He mentioned that some time has passed since this Committee was set up in July. I presume that he has now heard that he has been reappointed, in the light of his great and distinguished work in the Council of Europe.
Mr Chope
The House is anticipating that this matter will be decided soon. I hope that it will be, because six months after a general election, the right of this Parliament to be represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will expire. I hope that our new members of the Parliamentary Assembly will be chosen soon and presented to the House. I understand that that is normally done through a written statement from the Prime Minister. I also hope that that statement will include the names of some Scottish National party Members, because even if they cannot at present participate in the work of the Joint Committee, they could play an important role in the Parliamentary Assembly—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have indulged the hon. Gentleman a tad. He is indeed a distinguished member of the Council of Europe, a fact that has been commented on not only in the House but in many European capitals that I have visited. That said, it is not a matter for the motion tonight. I hope that the matter to which he refers will shortly be resolved in a satisfactory way, but it does not touch upon the question of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, a fact of which I think the hon. Gentleman is intimately conscious.
Mr Chope
Absolutely, Mr Speaker, and I am sorry that I was led down the wrong route by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has also been a distinguished member of the Parliamentary Assembly. I have made my point briefly: I hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and that the Joint Committee is able to function with all parts of the United Kingdom being properly represented on it.
The first purpose of the Joint Committee is
“to examine matters relating to human rights within the United Kingdom.”
I hope that that will be borne in mind by the Deputy Leader of the House and that she will respond with a big heart to the suggestion that this matter be referred to the Procedure Committee—but after the motion has been passed tonight.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I wish to state how important this Committee is. At a time when this Government are thinking of reviewing the Human Rights Act 1998 as early as November, with no Green Paper or White Paper, the imperative must be to set up this Committee to examine the matter of human rights and the most fundamental Act protecting humans and their rights in this country and in Europe. This is a crucial time for the House to have a Select Committee on a major constitutional issue. If there are changes to be made to its make-up further down the line, so be it, but there should be no delay in establishing this very important Select Committee.
Mr Speaker
I thought we were going to hear from the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), but it appears not. He was on the list, but he does not wish to orate. Very well, I call Mr Grady.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I hope that when the Joint Committee on Human Rights does finally meet it will consider the European convention on human rights, protocol 1, article 3, which states:
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.”
Of course, the vast majority of legislators in this country—in this Parliament—are unelected; they are up the corridor in the House of Lords. It is therefore a complete disgrace and a total irony that the third largest party in this House is not to be represented on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. One day, a Government of this country are going to find themselves in the High Court or the Supreme Court across the road with democratic citizens rightly challenging the fact that they are not allowed to vote for the largest number of legislators in this Parliament. It is a total and utter democratic outrage.
Patrick Grady
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We heard the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) making a point of order earlier in the day about precisely that matter: that the House of Lords might choose to undermine or vote against the current Government’s policy. I do not know whether it was him or someone else, but it was suggested that the solution to that, rather than abolishing the House of Lords or electing Members of the House of Lords and giving it a mandate, was simply to create yet more peers to outnumber us even more. I am sure the irony was not lost on those of us who were sitting in the Royal Gallery yesterday: the question of where elected mandates come from.
As my colleagues have stated, the human rights framework is at the core of the Scotland Act 1998 and it is fundamental to the new democracy that exists north of the border. Given that the Government seem determined to undermine the Human Rights Act here in this Parliament, it is even more concerning that we are not being given a voice on the Joint Committee—they are refusing to give a voice to the third party. We have a democratic right, as democratically elected Members of this House, and a duty to look out for the human rights of our constituents. Tomorrow, the Government are going to force through Standing Orders that will further undermine our rights, and it raises the question: where is this respect agenda? Where is the respect for the decision that the people of Scotland made last year when they said to stay in the UK, for now.
Tommy Sheppard
Does my hon. Friend agree that another context to this debate is the recent discussion in Scotland? Scottish people who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom were given every assurance that Scotland would play a full role within that Union, but they now see not only no SNP representation, but no Scottish representation on this Joint Committee.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party could nominate its Member from Scotland for the Committee—perhaps even the Liberal Democrats could do so as well. The reality is that this matter is not simply about the third party, but about a complete lack of geographical representation, and the point that my hon. Friend makes is very well made.
If the Government are serious about the respect agenda and about respecting the decisions that have been made by the people in Scotland both in the referendum last year and in the election this year, I strongly encourage them to reconsider the decision that they are making tonight, to listen to the constructive suggestions that have been made and to bring this matter back when there is a decent proposal that represents and respects the views of the people of Scotland.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a very important debate and it is good that we are having it. Human rights are incredibly important and this country led the world in 1950 in drawing up the European convention on human rights, which created the Council of Europe, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights is a direct child of that.
I hope the Government are listening, as some good points have been made. Those of us who take the Union very seriously want to ensure that the Scottish National party, as the properly elected representatives of the Scottish people—no one can deny that they are that—are given an absolute, complete and full role in our Parliament.
As I said earlier, I will take this matter back to the Procedure Committee. We should resolve it as quickly as possible. It has been a good debate and my personal view is that the SNP should be on this Committee. It would be very easy to resolve the issue. I do not want to repeat attacks on cronies and donors in the other place. I have never been a donor—I have no money—or a crony.
Sir Edward Leigh
I wish I was a donor and a crony, because it sounds like a rather nice place to be.
Seriously, it would very easy to increase the Committee’s membership. I do not think for one moment that anyone would mind that. Without reducing the excellent contribution of highly skilled lawyers in the other place—people who have tremendous knowledge of human rights legislation— it would be perfectly possible to increase the size of this Committee and have a full role for the SNP.
Finally, this whole human rights thing is so important that the Government must take it very seriously, particularly in the light of what they want to do with the Human Rights Act, which I fully support. They have to show that they take this matter seriously and that they want to get the Committee set up quickly, and, if I may crave your indulgence for one second, Mr Speaker, they must establish the delegation on the Council of Europe as quickly as possible, because otherwise we are in danger of losing the plot there as well. I am sure that the Government are listening—they are, after all, a listening Government—and that this debate has had some effect, and in that sense, it is all to the positive.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, you will recall that I devoted my maiden speech to the subject of human rights. In it, I spoke of the importance with which the Scottish Government and the people of Scotland regard human rights.
Human rights are universal and they should concern us all in the United Kingdom. As has been said already, this Committee is supposed to be considering human rights in the United Kingdom, yet there is not one single Scottish MP on it. How can that be right? It is not just an issue of disrespecting the SNP as a third party in the House, but an issue of disrespect to the Scottish electorate. [Interruption.] I see Labour Members shaking their heads, and saying that they will not support us on this. I say to them: do not forget the consequences of their previous disrespect for the Scottish electorate. They heard them loud and clear on 7 May this year. The Labour party wants to make a comeback in Scotland. Not arguing for the Scottish electorate’s representatives in this House to be represented on a Committee that considers UK-wide matters is not the way to go about it.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) mentioned that we are shortly to be looking at the repeal of the Human Rights Act. In Scotland, the Human Rights Act is part of a larger picture, because the rights in the European convention on human rights are written into the devolution settlement by virtue of the Scotland Act 1998.
In Scotland, we have a national action plan for human rights and a UN-accredited human rights commission. There is a commitment to human rights extending beyond civil and political rights to economic, social and cultural human rights. We really do have something that we could bring to this Committee.
The potential withdrawal from the European convention on human rights is still a live issue. The Justice Secretary, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Justice earlier in the summer, said that he could not guarantee that we would remain within the convention. The Joint Committee will debate whether or not the United Kingdom will remain within a convention that underpins the devolution system settlement in Scotland, yet Members seem content not to have a single Scottish MP on it. That is frankly unacceptable.
During our independence referendum last year, there was great debate about human rights and a concern at that stage that if the Conservatives were to win an election in this country they intended to repeal the Human Rights Act. Those of us who voted yes wanted to write human rights into the constitution of an independent Scotland, and I know that one day that will happen, but for now we are part of the UK. Last year, during the referendum, the Prime Minister invited Scots not to leave the UK but to stay and lead the UK. How can we possibly even contribute to the UK’s debate about human rights in this House if there is not a single Scottish Member of Parliament on the Committee?
The Prime Minister has also spoken regularly of a respect agenda, but 58 out of the 59 Scottish MPs elected in May are from parties that oppose the repeal of the Human Rights Act and wish to remain in the ECHR; 56 were elected as SNP MPs. We are the third party in this House and it is unthinkable that the Liberal Democrats, when they were the third party, would have been excluded from a Committee such as this. Tomorrow, we will debate changes to Standing Orders to exclude Scottish MPs from votes in this House. Why can we not debate changing Standing Orders to include Scottish MPs on this Committee, which considers UK-wide matters?
Others have spoken of the House of Lords and there might well be Members of that House on the Committee who are Scots or who live in Scotland. They might even own an estate in Scotland that they visit for the hunting and fishing. Either way, I do not care what their background is and where they live. The point is that they are not democratically elected by the people who live in Scotland, and are therefore not accountable to the people of Scotland and they cannot speak for them. I and my SNP colleagues—and, indeed, the Labour MP, the Liberal Democrat MP, and the Tory MP who represent Scottish constituencies—speak for the people of Scotland. There is no doubt who the people of Scotland wanted to win the general election in May, however. It is almost unprecedented for a party to get 50% of the vote in our system. It is frankly an insult to the people of Scotland not to include a single Scottish MP on the Committee.
Tommy Sheppard
My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. Does she not also agree that the debate about whether this place and this Government respect the views of the people of Scotland is very much a live one? With the vow and everything else, and with good will being tested, is it not the case that the Government would be better placed trying to include the people of Scotland’s representatives in the Committee rather than excluding them if they want to reassure the Scots of their bona fides towards them?
Joanna Cherry
I could not agree more. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has spoken often of a respect agenda and we were told during the referendum campaign that we are an equal partner in this Union. Where is the evidence of that when not a single Scottish MP is on a Committee that considers one of the most important issues before Parliament this Session?
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Does the hon. and learned Lady accept that her incredulity would be more credible if she recognised that not just Scotland but other regions of the United Kingdom are excluded from the Committee? More importantly, a Public Bill Committee will be set up following last week’s Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, yet the SNP is taking all the seats on that Committee, excluding regions such as Northern Ireland and the democratic mandate that I and my colleagues have.
Joanna Cherry
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about such matters, he knows the route through which he can raise them. He knows that he can come and speak to us at any time to seek our view.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has a point. I am looking at the membership of the Joint Committee and most of the members from this House are MPs from London and the south-east. Nobody from north of Derby is on it. The hon. Gentleman has a very good point; not only does it not include Scottish Members of Parliament, but it does not include anybody from Northern Ireland, Wales or the north of England. I ask my hon. and learned Friend how that could possibly be right.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. One might almost think that we had rolled the clock back to 1745-46 and were not looking at anybody in the United Kingdom from north of Derby.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) makes a good point. It is disrespectful to have nobody representing the north of Ireland or, indeed, Wales on the Committee, but I am here as an elected representative of Scotland and I will speak for my constituents and the people of Scotland, and he can speak for his constituents and the people of Northern Ireland.
In every single debate on human rights that has taken place in this House and in Westminster Hall since the election, the Scottish National party has made a major contribution. Our First Minister has been outspoken in her determinedness to preserve human rights and the Human Rights Act not just for Scotland, but for everybody in the UK. She is on the record as saying that the Scottish Government would not do a deal with the UK Government to preserve the Human Rights Act for Scotland only. So let us have a little reciprocal good will from the remaining Labour Members.
It is a travesty of democracy and of this so-called equal Union for there to be no Scottish MP on the Committee. But it is an insult not just to those of us here. The most important point is that it is an insult to the Scottish electorate. If this is not put right, Members in this House should think very seriously about the message that they will be sending out the people who live in Scotland: “We don’t care what your elected representatives think about human rights. Our think-tank, our engine room on human rights, will exclude all representatives of the Scottish electorate.” Respect? I think not.
Question put.
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 28 October (Standing Order No. 41A).
Road and Rail Infrastructure (North Wales)
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that I believe is critical to the future economic development of north Wales and the wider region.
Better road and rail infrastructure can offer better access to training and employment opportunities further afield and better access to markets for businesses. It has the ability to attract development to the area and improve the success of companies located in the vicinity. In addition to general increased economic productivity and competitiveness, there are specific advantages that it might bring to the region: more tourism; better access for the public to local and regional services; reduced congestion and therefore safer roads and quicker response times for emergency vehicles; improved recruitment where there are current job shortages; better access to international gateways; increased access to future planned nuclear and green energy developments in the region which could help the area to gain national or even international recognition and expertise in these fields; and social benefits and a better quality of life.
The key railway line in north Wales is the Crewe to Holyhead branch of the west coast main line. We still have Victorian signalling systems, the line caters only for diesel trains, and there are speed restrictions. Parts of the line are the slowest in the UK. It offers relatively limited direct services to airports and major cities. One can travel from my constituency to London in two and a half hours, and I am aware of businesses that are located in the constituency partly because of the existing services. Rail is managed by Network Rail and as such is not devolved.
On road infrastructure, the A55 or north Wales expressway, which is less well known as the Euroroute E22, is our main trunk road. This runs east to west from the M53 at Chester through to Holyhead. Much of the A55 is on what is thought to have been the route of a Roman road, but the road we know today was developed from the 1930s onwards, the majority of it during the 1980s. The Bodelwyddan bypass completed its course across my constituency in 1986. From my constituency there is a half-hour journey along the A55 to the motorway network, and roughly a one-hour journey to the airports of Liverpool and Manchester, but congestion and accidents on the road have increased, as the Daily Post, the region’s newspaper, highlighted on Monday.
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentioned the A55, which is part of a Euroroute. Is he aware that the only two roundabouts on any Euroroute are to be found in my constituency? Only the other day I received an email from a constituent who had taken an hour to get from Llandudno to Llanfairfechan, a journey of only 14 miles. It is not so much an expressway as a barrier to growth in my constituency and the rest of north-west Wales.
Dr Davies
My hon. Friend makes a good point.
There are also poor links from the A55 to the north of my constituency, parts of which have some unemployment hotspots. The existing infrastructure supports numerous businesses, including those at St Asaph business park, but they are often under pressure to move east, closer to the UK’s motorway network. Road infrastructure is devolved in Wales, so joint working is critical when seeking to enhance key east-west routes.
There is a fundamental interdependence between north Wales and the north-west of England. In fact, the economies are inextricably linked, and I suggest that the north Wales economy complements that of the north-west, rather than competing against it. There are 50,000 cross-border commutes every day, which equates to around l million per month. One million people of working age live on either side of the border, and 8 million live across the wider area. To illustrate the size of this combined economy, there is a £31 billion economy along the M56 and A55 corridor, expanding to £77 billion if we include Liverpool, Cheshire and Warrington, and £140 billion with the Manchester city region. In fact, the overall region contributes 17% of UK manufacturing output and provides 30% of jobs locally.
North Wales clearly has a key opportunity to be part of the northern powerhouse and to link to HS2. Doing so would be an important way to address deprivation and unemployment in my part of the world. Parts of north Wales have an untapped workforce availability, and therefore an associated cost to the taxpayer of out-of-work benefits. I believe that better transport links would help the strategic and united growth of the north Wales and north-west region, despite political barriers that have developed post-devolution, and help regenerate the whole area. I reiterate that the transport routes in north Wales also form key trans-European links to Ireland, which is an important factor for economic growth.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for leading on this important north Wales issue. The trans-European route E22, which has been in place since 2002, has enabled the Welsh Government to apply for European moneys to put into infrastructure. Does he agree that they have not grasped the opportunity that that provides to invest in north Wales?
Dr Davies
It certainly seems so, based on what we all know in north Wales.
Some 85% of cross-border commutes are currently by road, probably because rail is under-utilised, but despite that there has been a 46% increase in rail passenger numbers over the past decade, and evidence suggested that there could be a 21% transfer to rail if services were improved further. The roads in north Wales, which are already congested, are predicted to be subject to increased traffic. It is clear that the current transport infrastructure, whether road or rail, is inhibiting further growth in the area.
There is a strong perception in north Wales that the region’s needs are not fully recognised by a Cardiff-based governmental culture. Major infrastructure has been earmarked for south Wales in recent times—I need only mention the £1 billion “black route” for the M4 in south Wales and news that at least £12 million has potentially been wasted in buying up land that might not be used—but sadly we are yet to see the same commitment for north Wales.
Let me focus on rail. Improvements in speed, frequency and reliability are needed. Electrification brings the prospect of faster, greener and quieter trains, with more capacity and greater reliability. Purchase costs, track wear and tear and running costs are lower than for diesel. Unbelievably, only 10 miles of track were electrified in the whole of the UK during the previous Labour Government, and under 50% of lines are currently electrified, so we compare quite poorly with other developed nations. The aim must be that from my constituency one could, for example, reach London in two hours and key employment sites in the north-west in 45 minutes. Electrification of the north Wales line would allow the whole west coast franchise to operate on electrified lines for increased efficiency and flexibility.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I too commend my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that a very effective piece of electrification would be the line between Bidston and Shotton, which would link two industrial zones, one on Wirral Waters and the other on Deeside?
Dr Davies
I do. I will mention that briefly, although it does not impact on my constituency as directly as on others.
There are opportunities for freight and for construction jobs. We need fast, direct connections to other key market destinations such as the Manchester and Liverpool enterprise zones and our airports and ports. Improvements would reduce pressure on an increasingly congested and polluted A55.
Greengauge 21, a not-for-profit company that exists to promote the benefits of a high-speed rail network, has already estimated that a relatively modest investment in electrification and track upgrade from Crewe and Warrington through to Holyhead in the next five-year funding settlement—control period 6, running from 2019 to 2024—would result in upwards of £500 million of benefits over the standard appraisal period of 60 years. I believe that an increasingly favourable benefit-cost ratio could be achieved as more benefits are quantified or if additional financial contributions can be secured. Savings could be delivered through upgrading the line alongside planned signalling improvements or electrification of other routes in the north-west.
The benefits of a railway line upgrade would be gained not only by north Wales and west Cheshire but further afield in the UK. In fact, £100 million of these benefits would be obtained by regional businesses being better able to work and trade with one another. Such benefits are key in an area with poor gross value added statistics. In terms of the northern powerhouse, the upgrade of the north Wales rail line could bring an additional £14 million benefit to Manchester, as well as enhancing the value of HS2. Of course, we hope that the Crewe hub will be in place there by 2027. Looking further into the future, an upgraded north Wales line could link with HS3, providing a fast link between the ports of Holyhead and Hull. In fact, should services to the European continent be operated on the new high-speed lines, we may even one day see services from Prestatyn to Paris or Rhyl to Rome.
When making the case for investment in the north Wales main line, we need to consider that the economic benefits might exceed what has already been outlined. That could partly be explained by current figures showing that passenger demand is being suppressed. There will be construction jobs that have not been taken into account. I am not convinced that the increased attractiveness of the region for investment that would be brought about has been fully quantified. We must also take into account reduced welfare bills and increased tax revenues through tackling the situation of those out of work and assisting areas of deep-seated deprivation. It is important to note that Greengauge 21 demonstrates that there would be a £1 billion disbenefit to the UK economy as a whole were electrification to take place only between Crewe and Chester. The reasoning is the cost to the economy that would arise from the need for a change of rolling stock at Chester for trains running to and from north Wales unless expensive dual electric-diesel trains are purchased.
Decisions for control period 6 are likely to be made over the next year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), for their meetings with me. I know that they are keen for cross-party support to make the case for the kind of investment that I have outlined. I also know that all will have been pleased by the interest shown by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Wales in the potential for upgrading the north Wales railway.
Last month, the North Wales Business Council held a rail modernisation business round table event and confirmed that direct access for businesses and the tourism sector to and from Manchester airport is the second priority behind electrification. This could happen at short notice through the use of existing lines. It would be a significant boost for north Wales and Chester, but it needs allocation of platform capacity at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester airport.
There are also calls for direct services from north Wales to Liverpool and its airports as a result of the reopening of the Halton curve, to which the Chancellor pledged his support last year thanks to the lobbying efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans). It is due for delivery in 2018.
Further ambitions for rail include a new station at Deeside industrial park; better services to Manchester and Birmingham, which will be helped by electrification; more rolling stock for the west coast main line, to allow Euston services to continue on to north Wales at certain times of the day and not to terminate at Chester; further dualling for the Chester to Wrexham line; more frequent and faster services on the Wrexham to Bidston line; extension of the platforms at Flint; rolling stock that is clean and comfortable, with adequate seats and luggage space, good catering, wi-fi and power sockets; good car parking and park-and-ride facilities at stations; and easy access to stations by other modes of transport.
In 2010, the then Secretary of State for Transport said:
“good transport connectivity is essential for cities and regions to build and maintain their economic competitiveness, and regions served by rapid rail services prosper at the expense of those with inferior connections.”
As for roads, I have already said that the A55 is congested and that congestion is expected to grow by 33% by 2040. There is an increasing number of accidents, with 1,500 vehicles having been involved in crashes over the past year, which represents an increase of 44% since 2012-13. Over recent decades, communities located near the A55 have experienced benefits, but some areas are cut off, such as the populated coastal strip of my constituency, which has relatively poor links. This is an issue for business and commuters, but it also means that tourists bypass the area to reach towns and communities further west.
The Welsh Government’s draft national transport plan for 2015 identifies the need to improve connectivity and congestion; tackle substandard networks and pinch points; and introduce overtaking opportunities to improve road safety. It identifies constrictions along some sections of the A55 and A483 dual carriageways, which result in lower average speeds. Key sections experiencing lower speeds include the A55 Britannia bridge, roundabouts at junctions 15 and 16 of the A55, the 50 mph section of the A55 at Colwyn Bay, and the A494 at Deeside.
I referred earlier to 1 million cross-border commutes per month. Poor rail services result, in part, in congestion at the A494, which links the M56 to the A55, at Ewloe. The A494 is cut in half by the border. On the English side, major improvements have been made to the M56 and A494, taking motorway conditions through to the border with north Wales. That has improved travel times to north Wales, but only up to the border. Ironically, it has also improved employment links for workers from the north-west wishing to access jobs in Deeside in Wales, yet similar opportunities for Welsh workers do not yet exist, because of the lack of improvements to the A55 and the Welsh section of the A494.
The Assembly is currently considering two options, with a decision expected in a year’s time, but construction is four to five years away. It is important that we proceed with one of the options to upgrade the links to the A55 from the M56, but we really need improvements above and beyond that. We seriously need to consider hard-shouldering or a staged upgrade to the motorway, starting at the most congested eastern section; crawler lanes; redesigning and improving slip roads; and the possibility of a smart or managed motorway through the use of active traffic management. The Highways Agency has had some success with the reduction and variability of journey times, as well as with a reduction in accidents, fuel consumption and pollution.
I make a plea on behalf of north Denbighshire and Flintshire for an upgrade of the A548 from the border to Denbighshire. The A548 currently has a plethora of speed limits and bottlenecks. It could provide a fast link to the Deeside enterprise zone, Chester, the M56 and beyond for populated areas, including deprived areas in my constituency and Delyn, and it would also relieve pressure on the A55.
I pay tribute to the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, which brings together the six north Wales unitary authorities to help transform our economy, partly by championing infrastructure improvements. Councillor Dilwyn Roberts is its chairman and leader of Conwy County Borough Council, and he is keen to ensure cross-party support. The board’s lead for the work stream on connectivity and infrastructure, Rebecca Maxwell, is particularly engaged in making the case for rail modernisation, and she recently warned that road and rail links have to improve to stop the transport system “grinding to a halt” as the regional economy tries to grow. It is holding a north Wales rail summit for business and community leaders in Llandudno next month, supported by the Mersey Dee Alliance and the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership, to push for better rail services across the wider region.
In conclusion, north Wales needs and deserves investment in transport infrastructure to realise its potential for economic growth. As the Chancellor has said, north Wales should very much be considered part of the northern powerhouse. An integrated approach to planning capacity and improvements for both road and rail is needed across the border with aligned plans, not plans developed in isolation from one other. In view of the devolution of trunk roads in particular, this is a challenge for both Westminster and the Welsh Assembly Government. That challenge has proven difficult to overcome in recent years, but it is in the interests of the region as a whole that we all unite on a cross-party basis to deliver the improvements the region desperately needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) for securing the debate. I pay tribute to him not only for the way in which he presented his case, but for wasting absolutely no time in lobbying the Department for Transport and the Wales Office on arriving in this place. Within two days of arriving, he wanted a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), and me to make his case. I pay tribute to him for the effort that he has put into that case in the short time that he has been in the House.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss how 21st-century transport infrastructure can help north Wales to achieve its potential and place the region at the heart of the northern powerhouse. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for their interventions. I will try to reflect on their points a little later if time allows.
Since 2010, we have delivered the largest rail investment strategy this country has seen since Victorian times. Both north and south Wales are benefiting significantly from the strategy. Understandably, much attention has focused on our commitments in south Wales, such as the electrification of the great western main line, while the additional funding made available to the Welsh Government for the valley and the Vale of Glamorgan lines has been debated at large. However, north Wales rail infrastructure has also seen its share of investment during the past five years, with the upgrading of the signalling, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd mentioned, the improvement of the Halton curve—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West who worked directly on securing that investment—and the plans and studies currently being undertaken by the Welsh Government for the Wrexham to Bidston line. I will return to some of those subjects a bit later.
North Wales is one of the most dynamic parts of the UK. Its economy has grown by 13.2% since 2010. It is right to highlight that Wales is the fastest growing part of the United Kingdom, but it is also worth underlining that north Wales is growing much faster than the average for Wales. There are currently few better places to invest than north Wales. The north-east Wales integrated transport taskforce has estimated that the north Wales economy is worth approximately £10.4 billion a year, and it is growing. The latest figures show that the north Wales’s economy grew by 3.1%, against an average of 2.5% for the UK.
I am proud of this Government’s record in helping to support the economy right across Wales, and north Wales is no exception, but we need to build on that momentum, which is why the Government have put in place our productivity plan “Fixing the foundations”. In that context, we are determined to ensure that the need for transport infrastructure in north Wales is recognised and that such infrastructure is fit for such a growing economy. There is a need for collaborative investment in developing infrastructure capable of sustaining the long-term economic growth that we are now seeing.
North Wales has for some time been calling for better transport links. I have already paid tribute to some of my hon. Friends who have contributed, but I want to underline the support given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd in working with the Wales Office to seek a plan for making an effective bid for control period 6. My hon. Friend mentioned that point and I will return to it later. Such lobbying has been heard loud and clear, as it was when I met businesses in Aberconwy and elsewhere in north Wales in August. When I spoke at the CBI north Wales dinner last month, businesses underlined the need for such investment.
Having first-class, modern transport infrastructure will not only support business growth; it will open opportunity, encourage new investment and help people to access the job opportunities, apprenticeships and training that can transform the lives of families and the fortunes of communities. We are already working to deliver that across north Wales.
We have taken steps to improve cross-border links between north Wales and northern parts of the UK. Last year, £10 million was committed to the Halton curve. I have mentioned the role of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West in that. That project is reinstating a direct rail link between north Wales and Liverpool. That has been welcomed widely by businesses and the passenger community alike. It is part of our plan to deliver a stronger, more prosperous northern powerhouse, in which north Wales is a key part.
This opportunity must be seized. I want to see joint working between north Wales, the Welsh Government, local enterprise partnerships and local authorities on both sides of the border. The Mersey Dee Alliance also has a role to play, as do the train operators. We need to use the investment in the Halton curve to deliver the optimal service pattern to transform the opportunities that I have mentioned.
We are committed to line speed improvements through the north Wales re-signalling programme. That is a significant scheme that should not be underestimated. It is expected to deliver journey time savings of up to eight minutes. That improvement will lay the foundations for further modernisation and electrification of the north Wales main line.
Likewise, the Wrexham to Bidston line is a key line for supporting enterprise and employment on Deeside. I am pleased that the Welsh Government are considering the economic benefits of investing in the line and a number of other options in north Wales. I look forward to working with them and the Department for Transport on bringing about satisfactory and positive outcomes.
It is worth recognising that HS2 will bring significant benefits to north Wales. It will reduce journey times to Crewe and create opportunities for other links because of the extra capacity that it will provide. HS2 is vital in providing extra capacity on the national rail network, which is straining under the weight of the huge growth in passenger numbers over the past 10 years.
Clearly, modernisation of the north Wales main line would be a significant boost to the region’s transport links and maximise the benefits to be gained from the planned high-speed line between London and Crewe. We must ensure that everyone is aware of the opportunities that that creates for north Wales and the importance of the cross-border infrastructure that links in to other activity on the rail network.
It is vital that we prepare the most robust business case possible that identifies the strongest possible cost-benefit ratio of upgrading the line. I will return to the cost-benefit ratio. We have to think in terms of outcomes and identify the key building blocks that will pave the way to electrification. Now is the time to influence control period 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd referred. This is a window of opportunity to identify the means by which tangible benefits to the network will be brought about to improve the passenger experience.
We must find answers to questions such as how we can provide more frequent services, how we can cut journey times across the network, and how we can improve the signalling and modernise the line. I am keen that we learn from other bids to the Department for Transport and the Treasury that have been successful. One such example, “Norwich in 90”, focused on the outcome of cutting journey times between London and Norwich, rather than on any particular technology. The bidders identified what they wanted to achieve, then found the best way of achieving it. We must focus our attention on the cost-benefit ratio, which is currently low compared with other projects. That is an objective, mathematical formula, and we need to strengthen the case around it.
The north of England electrification taskforce’s report “Northern Sparks” was an interesting addition to the debate because it examined for the first time the economic benefits of modernising rail infrastructure. The Welsh Government and north Wales authorities were involved throughout the preparation of the report, alongside interested parties from across the north and across political divides. That collaborative approach ensured a clear understanding about the interaction of services from north England and into Wales. We need an effective collaboration on modernising rail infrastructure in north Wales.
Politicians from Westminster and Cardiff Bay should continue to work together with business leaders and councils to make the case for transport infrastructure investment. We need a clear set of priorities, a clear plan of action, and clear funding commitments that focus on that cost-benefit ratio while also highlighting the economic opportunities that will be released.
Guto Bebb
Does the Minister agree that the upgrading of the north Wales main line is crucial to the development of the proposed nuclear power station in Anglesey? We need to move skilled workers from all parts of north Wales to the opportunities that will exist at that development.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point and highlights the private sector’s role in strengthening the case—particularly the economic case—for such upgrades. That is an excellent example.
Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd, I am grateful to the North Wales Economic Ambition Board for organising the summit next month—yet another example of the board’s commitment to promoting a collaborative, cross-party approach to achieving economic success in north Wales. I pay tribute to the tireless work of Councillor Dilwyn Roberts on behalf of the people of north Wales. I am also grateful to Edwina Hart, a Minister in the Welsh Government, for the approach that she has taken, which is another example of what can be achieved on a joint basis. The North Wales Economic Ambition Board will be key in making that case, along with other organisations such as the Mersey Dee Alliance, and the summit next month will help us to identify what case to make to the Department for Transport and the Treasury.
The northern powerhouse is a key priority for this Government. The Chancellor has said how important north Wales is to that dynamic, and a key rail and road infrastructure plan is vital to that northern powerhouse and to north Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Algeria) Order 2015
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Senegal) Order 2015
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Croatia) Order 2015
draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015
Draft International Tax Enforcement (Brazil) Order 2015
(8 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Bailey—the first time that I have had the pleasure, I believe. I would prefer, with your permission and that of the Committee, if we dealt with the draft orders on Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia and Sweden together—I appreciate that that will still lead to four votes—and then, in separate debates, the draft orders on Senegal and on Brazil. Of course, the Minister might have different views on what is appropriate.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I have no objection to that.
The Chair
I should make it clear that debate on the collective group of statutory instruments will continue for up to an hour and a half, although they will be voted on separately. There is then up to an hour and a half on the other two instruments afterwards.
Rob Marris
Do I understand it correctly, Mr Bailey, that in theory the proceedings could run for three hours? Or is it 90 minutes on each debate?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015, the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Croatia) Order 2015 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015.
Mr Gauke
Thank you for your guidance, Mr Bailey. I am immediately beginning to regret my assent to that slight rearrangement, but I am sure that all parties will work in a constructive way. Who knows, we might not be here for the full four and a half hours.
Let me start with Algeria. We have a first-time agreement that conforms closely to our expectations and to what Algeria has agreed with parallel countries. It will deliver substantial benefits for UK companies and individuals. The rates of withholding taxes for dividends, following the OECD model, are 5% for direct investors and 15% for portfolio investors. The maximum rates for interest and royalty payments are 7% and 10%, respectively. As is common with a developing country, we have agreed a provision that allows the taxation of services in the country in which they are performed, provided that they last for more than 183 days.
The treaty contains our usual anti-treaty shopping provisions, the latest OECD exchange of information article and an arbitration provision to assist the mutual agreement process, which will be an important comfort for UK companies investing in Algeria. There is also an article providing for mutual assistance in the collection of taxes.
Bulgaria’s treaty policy favours a higher level of source state taxation than is our preference. We have accommodated that to a certain extent and have obtained a similar agreement to those that Bulgaria has signed with other countries in the past five years.
On interest, there are exemptions from taxation at source on interest paid to financial institutions, pension schemes and fellow group companies. On royalties, the European Union interest and royalties directive, which took effect in Bulgaria in January 2015, will eliminate tax on intra-group payments. Dividends paid to UK companies will get the zero rate introduced by the EU parent and subsidiary directive, which took effect in Bulgaria in January 2015, and there is an important carve-out giving the zero rate to pension schemes. In most other respects, the treaty follows our preferences, especially in the adoption of anti-avoidance rules that prevent the treaty from being exploited by residents of third countries.
Let me now turn to the double taxation agreement with Croatia. This is a first-time, comprehensive DTA with Croatia. It will replace the existing 1981 treaty with Yugoslavia. Croatia’s treaty policy favours a higher level of taxation at source than is our preference. We were able to agree to that, however, as it has become a consistent feature of Croatia’s recent approach and, as is the case with Bulgaria, the combination of EU directives and the features that Croatia conceded to us will give us a result with which we are pleased. The treaty notably contains a withholding tax exemption for dividend payments to pension schemes.
We also achieved all our special provisions, such as our anti-treaty shopping measures, which prevent the UK from being used as a conduit, and a measure protecting our taxing right over real estate investment trust dividends.
Turning to Sweden, our existing treaty with Sweden dates from 1983 and although it is working reasonably well it is out of date by modern standards. In particular, the dividends article is defective and anti-treaty shopping provisions are also missing which, combined with Sweden’s general lack of withholding taxes, opens up the possibility of abuse.
The new treaty preserves the positive features of the existing one and includes most of the improvements that we were seeking. In particular, the 5% rate for portfolio dividends is maintained and we will now be able to tax real estate investment trust distributions at our preferred rate of 15%. On pensions, we accommodated Sweden’s wish for more extensive taxation at source, as we have done with Norway and Iceland. We now have a modern treaty, improvements to the dividends article and protection against abuse.
I hope those explanations are helpful to the Committee. I commend the draft orders and am happy to answer any questions that hon. Members might have on the provisions.
Rob Marris
On one level I must congratulate the Government on apparently negotiating extremely well for our country, but on another level I want to probe the Minister a bit.
If one looks at the four agreements with the four separate sovereign states, the agreements and the wording within them are very similar visually. Clearly, it is unlikely that the Bulgarians, for example, use our fill-in-the-blanks model—although I appreciate that negotiating such treaties is more sophisticated than that—but the format seems to be a UK one. Part of that is down to how the agreements are laid out in UK statutory instruments—the ones we are discussing today—but part of it is because the party negotiating with us apparently agreed to the format and the articles, even in that order.
There are of course some minor variations, as well as some major variations in terms of the percentage withheld and so on. There are minor variations, for example, article 16 of the Algeria order covers artistes and sportsmen. By the time we get to article 16 of the Bulgaria order—it is a common format—the reference is to entertainers and sportsmen. I am genuinely not asking the Minister why there is a difference. I am saying that there appears to be a common format.
The question asked among Opposition Members, therefore, is whether in one sense—I stress the caveat “in one sense”—our Government did too good a job in having the whip hand in negotiating with and persuading four disparate countries, four sovereign states, to adopt the UK format for a double taxation agreement. That brings into play the question, to which we will return when discussing the draft order on Senegal, of whether there was an imbalance in the power and resources of the negotiating parties.
I appreciate that that is unlikely to be the case with Sweden. It is less likely to be case with Croatia and more likely, with all due respect—it is a sovereign state—to Algeria, given its resources. I wish to probe the Minister on that imbalance. How come we have this common format that suits us? It makes things easy for us as parliamentarians, because article 16 is broadly the same in all four. We got our format, so that suggests to me that, broadly speaking, we got our content.
That is good for our country, but was there undue pressure and too much of an imbalance in negotiating power and resources in favour of our country, contrary to its heritage under this Government, the previous Government and the Labour Government before that? This country has always tried not to over-use the undoubted power and resources that we have in these sorts of bilateral negotiations.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I wish to make a brief contribution. I will leave it to the Minister, of course, to answer the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, but in part it is an EU convention to use this particular template, rather than an exercise of British fiscal power. One could almost ask—from my slightly different political standpoint—a somewhat different question, as I am someone who favours the idea of tax competition. I can see the advantage of having double taxation treaties, particularly given the importance of the UK as a global capital. There are a significant number of entertainers, artistes, sportsmen and others from Sweden, Croatia, Algeria and elsewhere, many of whom are constituents of mine but some may, of course, be constituents of the hon. Gentleman.
Mark Field
I should perhaps say that, in my latest role as vice-chairman of the party, I spent this weekend in a place I suspect I will never go to again, Karlstad in the middle of Sweden, attending our sister party’s party conference. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the exports of Sweden are not limited to Abba and it has to be said that the Swedes have a great love for our country. Something that I know will impress the hon. Gentleman is that there is a great passion from the Swedes that we should stay in the European Union—
The Chair
Order. I appreciate that consideration of such instruments sometimes benefits from some lighter interventions, but I would not wish those to take a disproportionate amount of time from the debate.
Mark Field
I take on board your view, Mr Chairman, and you can be assured that the light interventions will be light in time terms as well.
There is also an argument that having these double taxation treaties militates away from the idea of tax competition. In other words, we are standardising our tax across the globe. It makes a hell of a lot of sense, particularly in the three of the four cases we are dealing with of EU nations, that we should be looking to try and do that. It would be wrong in my view to assume that we are playing the whip hand and utilising our relative economic strength in this regard. It is healthy that we try to standardise these documents as far as possible. It is a good argument to Croatia and to future members of the European Union that they have similar treaties to those that apply to Sweden and I suspect to many other nations where we have double taxation treaties. This is a healthy development. I will now sit down and hopefully this will be my last contribution on this afternoon’s matters.
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West for his first contribution and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for his first and perhaps last contribution of the afternoon.
First, I will address the point about format. I understand why the hon. Gentleman raised the point but let me reassure him that all UK treaties follow to a large extent the OECD model, as is the case for most treaties throughout the world, which means that all the treaties appear very similar to each other. The hon. Gentleman would find that treaties that did not involve the UK would also look similar, so it is not so much the UK asserting a particular UK model. This is very much the international rule.
Rob Marris
Would that be the case with Algeria, which of course is not a member of the European Union and I believe is not a member of the OECD? Would it still, as far as he knows, tend to follow that common OECD format as a template?
Mr Gauke
Yes, that is very much my understanding. I confess I have not studied Algerian double taxation treaties not involving the UK perhaps as much as I might have done, but my understanding is that this model is used very broadly. Clearly there are advantages in terms of standardisation of the model for these treaties. It comes back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that double taxation agreements of this sort—tax treaties—help provide greater certainty to businesses. That greater certainty does help encourage foreign direct investment into countries that have treaties. The UK certainly benefits from a very extensive network of tax treaties, but developing countries also benefit from the certainty provided—the signal that a country is open for business. That is mutually beneficial.
I am aware that some critics of DTAs focus on the potential for abuse that they create, either through the creation of opportunities for non-taxation or the flow of benefits to unintended recipients, but such criticisms ignore the fact that measures can be agreed that protect against abuse, and the UK routinely agrees such measures with developed and developing countries alike. I would speak in defence of these tax treaties, from the point of view of both the UK and developing countries.
I suspect we will return to the role of the UK and the extent to which these matters are something of a compromise. I would just make the point that with any of these treaties, it is not realistic to expect any one party to a treaty necessarily to get their way on everything. These are matters on which there is likely to be some compromise.
I touched upon the fact that a lot of countries would place greater reliance on source income as opposed to residence as a test of where the taxable rights should fall. There tends to be a compromise reached, where an acceptable one can be. After all, each of the treaties before us this afternoon is the result of two sovereign Governments agreeing that it is in their mutual interest to sign it. We believe that a tax treaty can be a powerful tool for development because of the certainty it gives to international investors.
I hope those points are helpful to the Committee, Mr Bailey. I suspect I may refer to them again later this afternoon. I hope that, on those points of clarification, the Committee will support the four draft orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Algeria) Order 2015.
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (SWEDEN) ORDER 2015
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015.—(Mr Gauke.)
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (CROATIA) ORDER 2015
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Croatia) Order 2015.— (Mr Gauke.)
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (BULGARIA) ORDER 2015
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015.—(Mr Gauke.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Senegal) Order 2015
Mr Gauke
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Senegal) Order 2015.
This is the first time that we have had a double taxation agreement with Senegal. Senegal has only 10 other DTAs, so it was pleasing that it agreed to negotiate one with the United Kingdom. As a developing country, Senegal, not surprisingly, wished to retain a substantial level of source state taxation. The DTA therefore permits the taxation of services when performed in the country for more than 183 days. However, Senegal agreed reductions in withholding taxes on passive income, in particular restricting withholding tax on dividends payable to direct investors to 5% and that on leasing payments to 6%. The DTA also includes the latest OECD exchange of information and assistance in the collection of taxes articles. I hope the Committee will support this order.
Rob Marris
I am interested to learn from the Minister that this is the 11th double taxation agreement—or DTA, as I like to call such agreements—that Senegal is entering into. I imagine that it has already been signed, and that we in the United Kingdom are now to sign it off, as it were, through our democratic processes, but the treaty raises a number of broader issues that I wish to explore. In that regard, I am indebted to assistance I have received from ActionAid, an independent charity that has existed since the 1970s and which takes considerable interest in such matters. Its broad concern, which I share, is that, on occasions, the UK might be, as I suggested in the earlier debates, exploiting its greater negotiating power. I am not saying that we are, but I wish to explore that point, with the Minister’s help.
Senegal is a much poorer country than us; it is a former colony of France and it is in Africa, obviously, and therefore not in the European Union. Will the Minister therefore take me through some information? He may not have it all, with all due respect to his great knowledge and the great assistance he has, and may wish to contact me later in writing. I fully understand that. This is not an attempt to ambush him, as he knows, or an attempt to grandstand; it is an attempt to elicit information and on the basis of that information I will make up my own mind, and my hon. Friends will make up theirs, as to whether we think the order should be accepted, in lay terms, in this Committee.
My first question is: what co-ordination was there between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Treasury and DFID on this arrangement? There is a bit of an overlap here. We have an obligation to assist developing countries, and this Government fulfils that obligation with a commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid, which I salute. I know that it is not always easy for Conservatives to explain that commitment to their supporters, and I salute the Government for continuing the work done by the previous Labour Government and the coalition Government in saying that they think this is the right thing to do in our place in the world, in expression of our compassion and so on. However, there is an interplay with a developing country when we create a double taxation agreement between DFID and the Treasury, in this case because the double taxation may have an effect on the development of Senegal. Has DFID—of course, the Minister is not directly answerable for that Department, but he may know—or the Treasury carried out any kind of assessment on the likely development impact of the DTA within Senegal? I appreciate that he is a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government, not of the Government of Senegal, but he may have some information on that which would be helpful to the Committee.
More broadly, when the United Kingdom is understandably negotiating and discussing what may or may not—if negotiations do not work—become double taxation agreements with developing countries, presumably Her Majesty’s Government have various objectives in mind. These will primarily, of course, be objectives to the advantage of our country, the United Kingdom, but we have a history of looking at things from a broader perspective—again, something I encourage this Government to continue to do—and there can be an interplay between what one might call Treasury objectives and DFID objectives, which have to be refracted through the UK Government as a whole. I want some indication of what the UK’s objectives are when negotiating treaties with developing countries. There is a fear, which I share, that if mishandled, double taxation agreements could give too much power to multinational corporations.
We all know that some multinational corporations do not pay as much tax as many of us—including the Government, on occasion—would wish them to. The Government are disappointed at the level of tax paid by some multinational corporations, and we see that in the Finance Bill again this year—the Finance Bill No. 2, as it were. It happened in Finance Bill No. 1 in March as well; the Government brought in measures which Members on the Labour Benches broadly supported to lessen anti-avoidance that is often, but not always, carried out by certain multinational corporations.
If such organisations can do that to the United Kingdom, it crosses one’s mind to ask what they can do to a country such as Senegal that does not have the resources that are available to us, not only in financial terms but in expertise. If mishandled—I am not saying that the agreement has been mishandled; I am probing it—such agreements could be to the disadvantage of a developing country and to the great advantage of a multinational corporation which understandably—let’s face it, it is capitalism—would prefer to pay less tax, whether in Senegal, the United Kingdom or elsewhere. That is an aspect of tax competition about which I am deeply uneasy, even though the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster might be less uneasy than I am in terms of his political inclinations and the constituency, in both senses of the word, which he represents. I am uneasy about that.
It could be that the agreement contains restrictions that are more disadvantageous—or less advantageous—to Senegal than they are to us. The contents of the agreement could end up de facto setting maximum tax rates for Senegal in a sense through the back door through a double taxation agreement. Again, this is something for which Her Majesty’s Government are not directly responsible, but they ought to bear it in mind when negotiating such things. Such a treaty could narrow the scope of taxable earnings within Senegal, again lessening its tax base. If mishandled, or handled in a way which I would not regard as acceptable, it could limit the sovereign discretion of a country such as Senegal to increase its own taxes, if it chose to do so. It might find that its hands were tied by a double taxation agreement which it had negotiated with a tenth, eleventh or twelfth country from a position of weakness.
As I understand it, Senegal is a developing country. Let us be clear what we are talking about here. Like many developing countries, Senegal is more reliant than we are on revenue for the Government from corporate taxes. The income tax writ in many developing countries, for all kinds of reasons that I think would be obvious to members of the Committee, does not often run deeply or widely. When people are poor and do not keep paper records, it is difficult to collect income taxes, payroll taxes and so on. It is easier to use corporate taxation to fund the state in a country such as Senegal, whereas the balance is rather different in an advanced industrial country such as ours. Nearly 50% of the population of Senegal live below the poverty line. Fortunately, the figure is far lower in our country. Similarly, we have a far higher figure for life expectancy; it is around 80 years for men and women combined. In Senegal it is around 63 years. On the human development index, my understanding is that Senegal is 163rd out of 187.
We are talking about a very poor country in world terms with low investment, currently, from the United Kingdom. Such investment is in the order of perhaps £1 million or less, although the figures are not entirely clear. I have been told that Senegalese investments in the United Kingdom are about £1.5 million at the current rate. That figure does not surprise me—just because it does not surprise me does not mean it is accurate—but I think most Members present would find that figure not surprising.
I am sure that we wish to build up bilateral trade and bilateral investments between the United Kingdom and Senegal. It is never going to be a very major trading partner of the United Kingdom but we play in the world and earn our living in the world and we wish to have these kinds of agreements and arrangements with many countries to increase bilateral trade as long as it is to our advantage and, one hopes, to their advantage. Unless it is to both countries’ advantage, ultimately that kind of relationship goes nowhere.
Will the Minister say whether the Government have done an assessment of the likely impact on trade and mutual investment between the two countries, to which the double taxation agreement would contribute by setting a climate of greater certainty for both states? Will he indicate—I appreciate that he may not be able to do so for reasons of confidentiality—which UK companies, if any, approached Her Majesty’s Government and said, “We think that a double taxation agreement would be advantageous”? That might give us a greater insight into the arrangement that is being proposed and the context in which it is being proposed.
Will the Minister also tell us whether the UK Government are aware of any analysis of the potential cost, or indeed the potential increase in revenue, to the Senegalese Exchequer that may result from the agreement? I stress that I quite understand that the Minister is answerable for Her Majesty’s Government, not for the Government of Senegal, but he may be aware of such research into the Exchequer effect in Senegal. If he is, it would be helpful if he were able to share that with the Committee. Similarly, it would be helpful if he knows and can share with the Committee briefly what effect the measure might have on the general level of prosperity in Senegal, given that for our country—and, one suspects, for Senegal, although I am not an expert on the country—trade, if handled properly, tends to increase prosperity, and double taxation is part of an overall trading agreement between the two countries. Of course, trade is not guaranteed to increase prosperity, and it has to be handled properly. We are not going to debate what “handled properly” means, but I am trying to put the matter in context.
One would hope that the agreement would have an effect on the prosperity of those whom we represent here in the United Kingdom. With all due respect to Senegal, given its size and the size of its economy, the agreement will probably not have a major effect on the United Kingdom economy, but it may have a more marked effect on the prosperity of Senegal. Some fear that it might have a deleterious effect, if, to put it somewhat in the vernacular, the big bad corporations get their way and pay less tax in Senegal. I do not say that that will be the case; it is simply something that I want to explore and get a little clarity on.
The feeling of ActionAid, which knows more about the matter than I do, is that this is one of the more restrictive treaties that the United Kingdom has signed. We debated earlier in relation to Algeria—another less developed economy in Africa that is not a member of the European Union and so on—the format of such treaties and the tendency of countries that are not in the EU or the OECD to look at the OECD template as a starting point. That seems to have happened here. Inasmuch as I am aware of them, I share ActionAid’s concerns. I do not know whether those concerns are groundless; with due respect to ActionAid, it does not believe them to be. ActionAid—and I, as a Member of the House—would like clarification on whether the agreement is less advantageous than similar agreements signed by other developing countries.
The Minister is not an expert on other developing countries, and I do not ask him to be. He is answerable, as I have said repeatedly, for Her Majesty’s Government and no other Government. However, he might have some information and examples to help us. The treaty and the articles contain the definition of a “permanent establishment.” The definition in the statutory instrument, following on from the treaty, extends less flexibility, which makes it more restrictive for Senegal than some other agreements. For example, to quote ActionAid,
“the treaty is unusual in that activities associated with a building site in Senegal conducted by a British firm will not be taxable in Senegal, nor will royalties paid to the UK for radio and TV programmes broadcast in Senegal.”
I appreciate that there are probably not very large numbers of UK radio and television programmes broadcast in Senegal, although there might be regular ones, such as Premier League football. As I understand it from ActionAid, both of those provisions have been included in about 90% of tax treaties signed by developing countries since 1970, but omitted from this one. The Minister may not have this information at his fingertips today, but with the assistance of the Treasury he will be aware of the other double taxation treaties the United Kingdom has signed with developing countries—we have dealt with Algeria already today—and there does appear to be a difference.
There is a concern that this agreement does not include a clause that allows Senegal to tax fees for technical services paid to the UK. It is suggested that Senegal wanted that provision, but it is not there. As the Minister said in the earlier debate, “In any negotiations, some things you get, some things you don’t.” He did not use these words, but it takes two to tango. I spent a lot of my working life as a negotiator as a solicitor, so I understand that there has to be give and take, but one has to be alert morally, as a rich country, to that imbalance in negotiating.
I may be wrong—I appreciate that the Minister was not present for the blow-by-blow investigations, but he might have some background information—but it appears that, in regard to technical services, we got our way and Senegal did not. If that be the case, perhaps the Minister will confirm that and indicate where Senegal, on a quid pro quo, got its way and we did not. There has to be give and take. The suggestion is that there has been some “give”, so I want to explore what the “take” might be.
As I understand it from ActionAid, the Senegal statutory rate of tax is 16%, but here it is 10% on the withholding tax—quite a large discrepancy if those figures are correct. Is the Minister aware of how that difference came about? Again, there is some “give”, so was there some “take” to balance the scales? It is feared that that will help multinational companies to lessen the tax they pay in Senegal by funding companies’ commercial operations through intra-company loans—an activity known to many of us. That has become more and more common; in fact, we discussed that in the Finance Bill Committee this year in the room next door.
Similarly, I am told that, on royalties, there is a difference between the statutory rate in Senegal of 20% and the withholding tax of 10% in the agreement. It could be that I do not understand enough about taxation. As the Minister and other members of the Committee know, I am not an accountant, but when one sees that kind of discrepancy, a lightbulb goes on and a question arises.
To sum up, there is concern that there may have been too much “give” by Senegal and not enough “take” and that that might have been driven by the imbalance in negotiating resources and power between the two sovereign states. I hope that the Minister will shed some light on that.
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I very much appreciate that he is probing the Government, as indeed is his role, and I am grateful that he indicated to me in advance that he would probe along those lines.
We do have to bear in mind that such treaties are not a zero-sum game. The hon. Gentleman did not claim that it is, but we have to bear in mind that a concession by one party to the other may well be to their mutual benefit. That is the nature of a double taxation agreement: it helps to provide greater certainty, for example, for businesses investing in a particular country. It prevents double taxation, which would act as an impediment to foreign direct investment. As we touched on in our earlier debate, that is why these treaties help to smooth the flow of investment funds and help countries to trade more closely together, which is an important source of increased prosperity. I make that general point.
More specifically, regarding the Senegal treaty that we are considering today, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the fact that discussions on this DTA commenced after an approach from Senegalese officials and not after lobbying by UK multinationals—not that such lobbying would necessarily be wrong. Nevertheless, the process was initiated by the Senegalese. The treaty will provide benefits for UK companies investing in Senegal, and Senegal will also benefit from such investment as its economy develops. Indeed, it is important for a country to be clearly open for business and to provide a tax regime that attracts investment rather than deterring it.
I will touch on some of the specific points that have been made. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the difference in withholding tax. The treaty reflects a compromise after extensive discussions. The balance of source state taxation versus residence state taxation reflects that compromise while providing certainty to businesses, which will encourage investment in Senegal. Cross-border trade will be enhanced, increasing taxable income in both states.
The hon. Gentleman raised a concern about UK multinationals exploiting the treaty to the disbenefit of Senegal. Of course, the Government are well aware that treaties can be exploited by some multinationals, but this treaty contains measures that will allow aggressive exploitation to be challenged by both states. Senegal has subjected this treaty to its legislative procedure, just as we are doing here now, and more widely, non-governmental organisations have acknowledged that the transparent nature of treaties is a positive factor for developing countries. I make the point again that the Senegalese Government initiated the discussions about this treaty and have agreed to the treaty.
On the economic and revenue effects of DTAs, they remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment. The effects of a specific agreement depend on the extent to which activities change as a result of it. Given the long timescales involved, the complex and shifting interactions with domestic law, the unpredictable behavioural effects and the lack of a sensible comparator, it is not possible to provide meaningful estimates of the revenue effects of DTAs, and successive Governments have never attempted to do so. I remember asking questions about the effects of a DTA when I performed the role that the hon. Gentleman is performing now, and I never received an answer. In truth, it is difficult to come up with a sensible number. Overall, however, DTAs are beneficial to the world economy and to participants in them.
A couple of other specific points were made about the Senegal treaty. The hon. Gentleman asked why it does not permit Senegal to tax supervisory activities connected with building sites, but it does allow that. The threshold for the taxation of profits arising from building sites is that the activity be carried on in the country for six months. While supervisory activities are not mentioned specifically in the treaty, the OECD commentary on the relevant provision makes it clear that supervisory activities associated with the erection of a building are included in the taxable activity of the building site.
As for why the treaty does not permit the taxation of royalties paid for radio and television programmes broadcast in Senegal, it provides that generally, royalties arising in Senegal can be taxed in Senegal at a rate not exceeding 10%. The definition of royalties includes payments for the use of, or the right to use, any copyrighted literary, artistic or scientific work, including cinematographic films. The OECD commentary on the provision makes clear that cinematographic films include material for TV broadcast. If the material to which the payment relates is subject to copyright and the payment is for the use of the copyright, Senegal may tax the payment. I hope that provides some reassurance.
Rob Marris
I congratulate the Minister on the width of his expertise on taxation in Senegal on cinematographic matters. It is most impressive.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful. It is recently acquired expertise—[Laughter]. As is my expertise on technical services paid to the UK from Senegal.
Fees for technical services fall within the business profits article of the treaty and can be taxed in Senegal if the fees are attributable to a permanent establishment in Senegal through which the work relating to the fees is performed. That reflects the view of the UK and many other states that business profits should be taxed in the country where the business is carried out. Senegal’s approach to the taxation of services differs from that of the UK. The treaty represents a compromise after extensive discussions, and the provisions governing the taxation of services follow the approach of Senegal in important respects—for example, the taxation of mobile services and insurance.
The shadow Minister asked about DFID. The UK seeks the views of UK businesses and Government Departments on agreements and treaty negotiations on an annual basis. I hope he is reassured that when it comes to overseas development, and in particular capacity building, there is a close working relationship between HMRC and DFID to improve the capability of developing countries when dealing with their tax systems. I am talking not specifically about treaty negotiations but more generally about the capacity to, for example, enforce transfer pricing legislation. A considerable amount of work is done by HMRC and DFID together to provide technical support to developing countries. I strongly support that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—a former Treasury Minister—takes great interest in it as well.
There has traditionally been consensus in this country on extending double taxation agreements. The shadow Minister raises perfectly reasonable points, but I hope he is now reassured.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I am reassured, and I will not seek to divide the Committee on the instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft International Tax Enforcement (Brazil) Order 2015
Mr Gauke
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft International Tax Enforcement (Brazil) Order 2015.
This is a standard agreement that sticks closely to the model developed by the OECD and adopted by the UK. It will facilitate exchanges of information on request between the Brazilian and United Kingdom tax authorities and assist HMRC in its tax compliance activities to counter tax avoidance and evasion. I hope the order will have the support of the Committee.
Rob Marris
Will the Minister briefly explain why the order is so different from the other ones?
Mr Gauke
This is a different type of agreement. It is about tax information being exchanged, as opposed to a double taxation agreement, so it seeks to do different things. This order is about assisting tax authorities to enforce the law. On why this is not a double taxation agreement with Brazil, that would require both sides to reach an agreement. At the moment, at least, Brazil is not prepared to enter into an agreement that we believe would make a tax treaty worth while. I hope that will change in future, because it would clearly be beneficial to the UK and to Brazil. In the meantime, my officials remain in regular contact with their opposite numbers in Brazil and monitor the situation closely.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft English Apprenticeships (Consequential amendments to Primary Legislation) Order 2015
(8 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft English Apprenticeships (Consequential Amendments to Primary Legislation) Order 2015.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. Before I explain the effect of the order, I will set out the background to it. An independent review of apprenticeships in 2012 by Doug Richard recommended a number of changes to improve apprenticeships in England. In response to that review, the Government committed to making apprenticeships more responsive to employer needs. To achieve that, they introduced a range of apprenticeship reforms via the Deregulation Act 2015.
As a one nation Government, we want all people across the country to reach their full potential. There have been a record 2.3 million apprenticeship starts since 2010, and we have committed to delivering 3 million new apprenticeship starts in this Parliament. We are taking action to support the growth of apprenticeships to meet our 3 million commitment. We are working with large and small businesses to help them begin or expand their programmes, and we are setting new expectations for public sector bodies through public procurement.
We know that apprenticeships benefit employers, apprentices and the economy. In June 2015, research measuring the net present value of further education in England indicated that adult apprentices at levels 2 and 3 delivered £26 and £28 respectively for each pound of Government investment. We need to ensure that quality apprenticeships continue to help employers and the country to prosper in the years to come.
The Government are giving employers the opportunity to develop high-quality apprenticeships that deliver the skills they need. Through our trailblazer groups, employers are designing new approved English apprenticeship standards. They are deciding which skills, knowledge and behaviours are required in a successful apprenticeship, and how those skills should be assessed. More than 140 trailblazer groups, involving more than 1,300 employers, have already published 187 new approved English apprenticeship standards, and more than 160 are in development.
The new, approved English apprenticeship standards are in a broad range of sectors, including nuclear, fashion, law, banking and defence. A number of apprenticeships started on the new approved English apprenticeship standards this September. The development of new, more rigorous, approved English apprenticeship standards is extending the coverage of apprenticeships into sectors with little or no previous history of apprenticeships, such as financial services and the legal profession. In addition, new degree apprenticeships in occupations such as chartered surveying and aerospace engineering are bringing together the best of vocational and higher education.
The order is technical. It makes relatively minor amendments, which are a consequence of the insertion by the 2015 Act of chapter A1, which relates to apprenticeships, into part 1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Chapter A1, among other things, defines an approved English apprenticeship. It also provides for approved apprenticeship standards, which will set out the outcomes that those seeking to complete an approved English apprenticeship will be expected to achieve, and confirms that an approved English apprenticeship agreement is to be treated as a contract of service.
The order makes amendments to two pieces of primary legislation. The amendments are required as a consequence of the changes I have just set out. It is important that those changes are made so that, where necessary, references within other primary legislation refer to the newly introduced approved English apprenticeships, approved English apprenticeship agreements and/or alternative English apprenticeships.
First, the order makes two amendments to the Education Act 1996, in respect of provisions that set out certain duties of English local authorities relating to the education and training of persons over compulsory school age, so that apprenticeships under the new statutory apprenticeship scheme are treated in the same way as those under the previous statutory apprenticeship scheme.
Secondly, the order amends the Education and Skills Act 2008, in respect of a duty on certain young people in England to participate in education or training, so that apprenticeships under the new statutory apprenticeship scheme are treated in the same way as those under the previous statutory apprenticeship scheme.
Taken together, those measures will update the primary legislation in question to reflect reforms that have already been made to the Government’s apprenticeships programme. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I am new to this portfolio, so it is a pleasure to face the Minister for the first time, as it will be to face the Minister for Skills, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) in due course.
The Minister spoke about both the context and detail of the order, so I intend to follow his lead in that respect and ask specific questions. I accept and understand that he is not the Skills Minister, so if he cannot answer them now, a note to me and the Committee would be helpful.
I think the Minister was clear about this, but I want to be certain because there is a degree of ambiguity in the drafting of the order: will he confirm that all references in legislation to apprenticeships now include the approved English apprenticeships with approved standards, and that no loopholes are left that could mean that someone undertaking a new apprenticeship would not be covered by legislation?
Perhaps more substantively, previous legislation covered both England and Wales, but the order, as I understand it, covers only England. What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with the Welsh Assembly about its protection of standards for those who undertake apprenticeships?
Again, I think the Minister made this clear, but for the avoidance of doubt will he confirm that existing frameworks, and not just trailblazers, remain covered by all legislation supported by Government? In that context, I refer him to article 2, which talks about
“an alternative English apprenticeship…within the meaning given in section A1(4) of the Act”.
It has been suggested that alternative apprenticeships are directed at self-employed people or people who do not earn during their apprenticeships. Therefore, will he explain how the alternative apprenticeships also being inserted into legislation will work? In particular, if it is true that people who do not earn during their apprenticeship will be affected, how does that square with the Government’s general position on the minimum wage and things of that nature?
The Minister talked about wanting to be more responsive to employees. I held the same position as I do now when the Richard report came out, and Labour engaged with that process and was broadly supportive of the proposals. However, the Minister will know that the devil is in the detail. As he will know, the CBI has called for clarity on the new trailblazer assessments, companies have been concerned that the assessment costs for trailblazers are disproportionate, and other providers in this area such as the Association of Colleges, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and in particular the Federation of Small Businesses have expressed concerns about the detail. If he cannot comment specifically on that today, I would be grateful if he would explain in writing what measures his Department has taken to allay those concerns.
Finally, the 2012 review that the Minister mentioned suggested that apprenticeships should be sector-based. When the Government received that report, did they anticipate that 70 different sectors would be involved? Given that that is the case, what are the likely implications for administration and staffing in his Department or elsewhere?
Joseph Johnson
It is a pleasure to face such a formidable, forensic opposite number—I am not envious of my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills in that respect. I will do my best to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and, in areas in which I cannot provide him with as much detail as he would like, I will happily write to him and other members of the Committee.
The hon. Gentleman’s first question was whether all references to apprenticeships in legislation are now covered, following the changes made in this order, or whether there are still loopholes. The intention is that the work done in this Committee today should mean that the legislation is now comprehensive, and we hope that we are addressing his concern in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman’s second major point was about the Welsh aspect of the order. He asked what discussions the Government have had with the Welsh Government on the protection of apprenticeship standards. As he knows, skills policy in Wales is a devolved matter, and therefore the protection of apprenticeship standards in Wales is an issue for the Welsh Government.
I turn to how alternative English apprenticeships will work, which is another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. Alternative English apprenticeships are intended to allow the Government to make provision, where appropriate, for apprenticeships in occupations where it is not the norm for apprentices to have an employer.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about responsiveness to the needs of employers. I point out that we have, as he knows, set out the trailblazers programme. As I mentioned, there are 140 groups in that programme, comprising 1,300 businesses involved in designing world-class apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships, which are essential for employers to ensure that they get the pipeline of skills that they need in years to come. We are working closely with trailblazers at all phases to ensure quality across standards. Giving employers responsibility for developing those standards is absolutely vital in ensuring that they have a vested interest in producing high-quality standards that are robust. A number of criteria have been set that all new apprenticeship standards must meet in order to ensure quality and consistency across all apprenticeships. Those criteria provide a framework against which to approve the proposals put forward by employers developing the new standards.
Mr Marsden
I appreciate, again, that the Minister’s officials may wish to draft something for him in response to this point. When I referred to alternative apprenticeships, I mentioned two categories that had been suggested to me: one was self-employed people and the other was people who do not earn during their apprenticeships. There are certain very narrow circumstances in which that can and does happen at the moment, but I am sure the Minister would agree with me that that should not be regarded broadly as the norm, even for self-employed people. It would therefore be useful to know in due course, if not today, just how widely or narrowly the measure is drawn, if indeed the criterion is applied in those cases.
Joseph Johnson
On this occasion, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and make sure that he has that information available to him shortly.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rail Services: Portsmouth and the South-West
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Five Back-Bench Members wish to contribute to the debate. I will decide whether it is necessary to impose a time limit after the opening speech.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services to Portsmouth and the South West.
It is such a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
We constantly hear about the northern powerhouse, but we hear little about the southern powerhouse. We hear how the Government are putting money into cities, businesses and infrastructure in the north, but where is the investment in the south? The south is an area of 3.6 million people that contributes 15% of the UK’s output, but when will we start hearing about investment in the southern powerhouse?
I represent Portsmouth, which is often referred to as a northern city in the south because of its background in heavy engineering, building and maintaining our Royal Navy. The immediate post-war decades took a heavy toll on our traditional industrial base, but the city has been transforming itself over the past 20 years—the Royal Navy is more technically advanced than ever before, we have diversified beyond defence and we have a brilliant entrepreneurial community, as well as new cutting-edge technological companies. However, we still have to fight hard for investment. Portsmouth suffers from the assumption in some quarters that all parts of the south and the south-east are prosperous and well provided with infrastructure. In fact, I represent a city with neighbourhoods that are among the very poorest in the country.
I secured this debate because of the poor rail service in Portsmouth, but anything that helps Portsmouth will help other cities on the Solent, the Isle of Wight, Hampshire, further west and points between that area and London. The train service from London to Portsmouth Harbour takes as long as it did in Victorian times: one hour and 40 minutes to travel just 70 miles. It is quicker for me to drive door-to-door to Westminster than it is for me to take the train. Compare that with Manchester, which is 217 miles from London and takes just a little over two hours on the train, as we all found out when we went to the Conservative party conference. Birmingham takes 85 minutes for a 125-mile journey, and it will take just 50 minutes when High Speed 2 has been completed.
The train between Portsmouth and Southampton, a journey of 20 miles, takes 65 minutes. Compare that with Nottingham to Derby, a journey of 15 miles, which takes just 23 minutes. Newcastle to Sunderland, 17 miles, takes just 18 minutes. The Solent local enterprise partnership, our local authorities and businesses do great work in trying to maximise the potential of the area around Portsmouth and Southampton, which is one of the most widely spread conurbations in the country, but the Solent has been left behind and will continue to be so unless we introduce new rail infrastructure.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. As she says, this issue affects not only Hampshire and Portsmouth but our stations in Dorset. From London, it takes two hours and eight minutes to get to Poole, and two hours and 21 minutes to get to Wareham—the Minister has seen that station. Increased capacity and speeds would help to encourage people to use the railway, rather than the roads, thereby reducing congestion on roads such as the A351 in my constituency.
Mrs Drummond
My hon. Friend is right. As I continue, I hope that he will see some solutions. I am pleased that other places are behind me on this subject, because we must work together to show the Government why this is so important.
We often hear the area spoken of as the M27 corridor, but we need more than a motorway to make it a successful and competitive place to live and work in the 21st century. We need a sustainable transport policy that includes public transport and support for cycling provision, as well as making space for more cars. Other Members from along the route will highlight other areas affected by this debate, so I will concentrate on the Solent region, particularly Portsmouth.
Why are rail services important? The Chancellor is keen to increase productivity across the country, as he says in “Fixing the Foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation,” published in July 2015. He acknowledges that improving infrastructure is one of the many steps that he can take to improve the economy’s productivity. The Solent local enterprise partnership extends from Havant in the east to Southampton in the west and includes Winchester, Eastleigh and Fareham. Local productivity in the area, as measured by output per job, lags behind the south-east average by 15%. Portsmouth has some of the country’s most deprived areas, with wages falling well below those of other cities in the south-east. We must improve connectivity if we are to improve productivity.
By improving the train service, we would help employers by providing a wider choice of potential employees and, conversely, we would help employees have a greater choice of potential employers. We would help businesses broaden their markets and their supplier base. We would provide greater access to social infrastructure such as universities and city centres. All of that would increase the region’s productivity and help to improve the UK’s overall productivity.
Congestion on the main motorway connecting the area, the M27, is legendary. It can take anything from 30 minutes to two hours to travel by road between Portsmouth and Southampton. Traffic into Fareham and Gosport moves very slowly during rush hour. Some £250 million-worth of investment is going into upgrading the M27 to smart motorway status. Data from the Department for Transport tell us that traffic in one direction on the M27 between junctions 8 and 9 has increased from 99,000 vehicles a day to more than 112,000 vehicles a day. Even with improvements, the road will always struggle to cope.
The Atkins study “Economic Costs of Congestion in the Regions” states that congestion in the Hampshire region costs £400 million per annum and a further £100 million for Portsmouth and another £100 million for Southampton. That is eroding our productivity potential, and, if not addressed, will equal a loss in gross value added of 1.3% by 2025. The south Hampshire strategy document shows that total road trips are expected to increase by 11% in the period 2010 to 2026, which will increase time spent in queues by 53%. Business costs will increase, including the direct costs of drive time and fuel, but there will also be the indirect costs of logistics scheduling and general competitiveness and other costs such as increased pollution.
If there is no worsening of congestion within the Solent LEP area, we expect that the number of jobs will climb by 44,000 from 435,000 in 2006 to nearly 480,000 in 2026. If there is no infrastructure investment, we expect an increase of just 36,000 new jobs, a loss of 8,000 jobs. Figures from the last census show a flow of workers into Portsmouth of more than 40,000 a day, with 20,000 people leaving the city to work elsewhere. More jobs have been created since then, and the labour market figures every month show that the number of jobs is going up and up.
We need sustainable transport solutions to cater for those workers, but we need to ensure that we create the conditions that foster more high-skill, high-pay jobs, which requires investment. We have to build 75,000 houses in the Solent region over the next 10 years, so the congestion and infrastructure problems will just get worse. If we improve the rail service, we will be able to take traffic off the roads. We can improve the rail service by improving the speed and frequency of the service.
I believe there is a solution that will help not only Portsmouth and Southampton but the south-west towards Weymouth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) has mentioned, by helping to alleviate the crowding on trains on all lines going from the area to London Waterloo. There are three routes from Portsmouth to London, but I will focus on just two of those routes, both operated by South West Trains at present. One route goes via Havant, Haslemere, Petersfield and Guildford to Woking and Waterloo, and the other goes via Eastleigh, Winchester and Basingstoke to Woking and Waterloo. Both routes suffer from overcrowding and capacity constraints. The rail system is unable to cope with existing demand.
Network Rail published the excellent “Wessex Route Study” in August 2015, and it describes the problem and proposes solutions. The report says that the system is experiencing demand that is 20% greater than it can cope with and that, within the planning period, the demand is expected to grow still further by another 20%. Network Rail’s solution is summarised as follows: junction improvements and platform capacity at Basingstoke; and, again, junction improvements and platform capacity at Woking. Those two projects will cost £175 million each.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I hope that the Minister has noted the A-team turnout from Hampshire MPs. It takes a lot to get this many Hampshire MPs in one room, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing that.
In the previous Parliament, nearly £4 million was spent in my constituency on an improvement scheme at the railway station, which included parking, a new footbridge and improved wi-fi facilities and staffing of the station. Those were all fantastic, but they were icing on the cake. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to turn our attention to the cake itself? Ultimately, it is about building a bigger railway. We can put on more trains and deal with the three-plus-two seating issue, but unless we build a bigger railway and deal with Clapham Junction and London Waterloo, the problems back down the line for us will never change.
Mrs Drummond
I thank my hon. Friend for that very good intervention. I completely agree with him, and was about to come on to that point.
We need a new line between Surbiton and Clapham Junction to relieve capacity, and we strongly support the development of Crossrail 2. Those measures will help Portsmouth by cutting 10 minutes from the journey during peak times, as the train would not have to take the slow route avoiding Woking. However, it will still take about 90 minutes, the same time as it takes during off-peak times. The Wessex route study also proposes building an overtaking loop along the Havant to Guildford line that would enable faster services to overtake the slow services. If that was implemented, Portsmouth would be well on the way to having the same sort of services it had in the 1970s, when it was possible to get from Portsmouth to London in 75 minutes by train.
However, that is not all. That solution does not address the problem of connectivity within the Hampshire and Solent area. It is almost as fast to get from Portsmouth to Gatwick airport as it is to get from Portsmouth to Southampton airport, even though Gatwick is nearly five times the distance. To address the problem, all we need is the building of a chord at Eastleigh, or increasing the junction’s capacity to enable a train from Portsmouth to head south as well as north at the junction. That would enable a direct service from Portsmouth to Southampton airport and Southampton and save a lot of time.
The existing route to Eastleigh is made up of a number of single-track sections. Those have to be made into double-track sections, which together with upgraded signalling would enable service frequency to be improved, which would help to attract passengers. Network Rail estimated in its route utilisation strategy that that would cost £135 million. The improvements would not only help Portsmouth connect with its neighbours, but enormously improve the journey for passengers getting from Brighton to Bournemouth and Weymouth, and from Weymouth to Basingstoke, Winchester and London.
When high-voltage electrification of the main line takes place, train speed can increase and we can start getting the same level of service that the rest of the country enjoys. Overhead electrification in the region, as already partly allowed for in the electric spine proposals, would make a big difference to train speed, and I would like that included in any proposal. It would make technical sense. Modern rolling stock uses alternating current motors. Converting high-voltage AC from the national grid down to 750 V DC for the third rail and then converting it back to AC on the train to power it makes no sense at all. We already know that the South West Trains Desiro fleet is unable to operate on some parts of our lines at high speed because there is not the power capacity in the trackside equipment to permit it. High-voltage overhead electrification overcomes those problems.
Those measures would help improve productivity throughout the region. They would certainly help transform the economy in Portsmouth. In the “Rail Value for Money Study”, Sir Roy McNulty said that we should make best use of existing railways before considering new investment. The cost of the improvements as outlined is extremely small compared with that of new rail projects, such as High Speed 2 or Crossrail 2. There have been practically no major infrastructure rail projects on the line since 1967. The line from Portsmouth to Southampton was electrified only in 1989. In 2007, there was an expensive package of signal and power upgrades on the Portsmouth direct line. Not only did those works overrun, drawing a large fine for Network Rail, but we still have constant signal and power failures right from the point that the supposed upgrade was installed. That causes massive inconvenience for a large number of our constituents and damages our economic prospects.
Passenger satisfaction on routes from Portsmouth to London is among the lowest in the country. The latest national rail passenger survey shows that just 60% of passengers on the route think there is sufficient room. I am surprised it is that high, given the three-plus-two seating of the suburban stock on which my long-distance travelling constituents have to sit on their way to London. I am sure that some of my colleagues will talk about that. We now have no proper long-distance stock on peak services on the direct route from Portsmouth to London. Portsmouth passengers give a huge thumbs-down to the value for money of their ticket, with just 31% feeling satisfied.
Most of what I have covered is not new. It has been analysed, but nothing has been done. The measures would make journeys faster and have a major effect, taking people off the roads and making it easier to move around the whole area. The growth in passenger numbers on the Manchester to London line has increased by having services every 20 minutes. Increasing the number of trains an hour would be expected to help increase the numbers of passengers who travel by train in our area. The impact of faster trains on the economy along the Solent region, including a fast train from the south-west region and from Portsmouth to London, would be a massive boost to the southern powerhouse.
We must also remember our friends across the Solent. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) is here. I know he will have a lot to say. There are commuters who travel from the Isle of Wight to London every day. The Isle of Wight is a vital part of the regional economy. Its trade passes through Portsmouth with Wightlink and Hovertravel, and through Southampton with Red Funnel. I am delighted that a new operator, Scoot, is coming on to the Portsmouth to Cowes route. Improving rail links to the ports will help the Isle of Wight develop as a place to visit and to do business, and it will help the ports, too.
The Chancellor, while looking at the opportunities that could make up the northern powerhouse, must not forget the goose that lays the golden eggs in the south. The south requires only incremental amounts of investment to continue increasing production.
Portsmouth would be transformed by having a fast train service to London and along the Solent region. Any investment in our infrastructure will have an immediate impact on the local area, not forgetting that South West Trains already contributes £374 million per annum to the Exchequer, which could be reinvested to make that investment happen. I know that other Members will be talking about the quality of trains and the impact on their areas, but I hope that this debate will put down a marker to ensure that our rail infrastructure is upgraded to the same level as the rest of the country.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Six Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Do the maths. If everyone is reasonably sensible, all colleagues should be able to get in.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) in saying that it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I thank her for doing so at a timely moment in the region’s growth.
I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents in Havant where, because of a growing population, a strong economy and rising visitor numbers, we are looking for quicker, longer and better trains, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) has so often said. We are also looking for improved local and regional infrastructure. Many of my constituents travel locally in the Solent region, including to the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), both of whom are here and are passionate advocates for their constituencies. Many of our constituents travel to other constituencies for work and leisure, and it is important that they have that opportunity in the future.
I congratulate the Government on securing a railway network that is at its busiest since the 1920s and is one of the safest in Europe. In my constituency, we have experienced that growth, which is evident at Havant’s three stations: Havant, Bedhampton and in the coastal village of Emsworth. All three stations are served by two train operating companies—Southern and South West Trains—and we are pleased to have them as part of our local infrastructure.
At the beginning of my remarks, I said that we are experiencing a growing population, a strong economy and rising visitor numbers, and I want to take a moment to elaborate briefly on those factors. I hope that that will send a strong message to our train operating companies that we want them to invest in our railways, both in my constituency and across the Solent and Wessex line regions.
At peak time during the day, 19,000 passengers use the line that serves my constituency and the constituencies of other Members in the Chamber. South West Trains operates one of the busiest lines—if not the busiest—in the country. It is also one of the most profitable. Along with my hon. Friends, I am looking for sustained investment in an important and profitable area for that train operating company.
Havant itself has a rising population. We were the first local authority in Hampshire to settle and finalise our local plan and we have some exciting developments in place, including Cooper’s Grange in Havant town that caters for young professionals and families, and Redlands Grange in the coastal village of Emsworth, which will provide new housing for many families coming into the area or others coming from the south coast. We have a growing population, because Havant is a popular area for elderly people to retire to, for young professionals seeking to build their careers and also for families looking to settle down.
We also have a large commuter population who commute along the south coast to the constituencies of many hon. Members in this Chamber, as well as to London. Many of my constituents live and work locally, but many live locally and work in the City, the west end and Canary Wharf, and I am determined that they should get a good deal as well.
Alongside the rising population in Havant, we have a strong and growing economy. Havant is blessed to be a regional centre and leader for the defence and aerospace industry. We have Lockheed Martin and several defence contractors in the constituency. It is also a regional leader for light industry and manufacturing across a whole range of sectors. All those businesses need to be able to attract high quality staff and to ensure that supplies can get to them along the railway.
Havant is also a centre for regional regeneration. Market Parade, the gateway to Havant town, is being regenerated. Dunsbury Hill Farm is being regenerated in partnership with the Solent local enterprise partnership, which should create around 3,500 new jobs. All those people coming to work in Havant require a strong and effective railway network and good local infrastructure.
Finally, Havant is a popular resort and destination for visitors from the south coast, from across the country and from around the world. The coastal village of Emsworth plays host to an award-winning food festival. Hayling Island hosts a range of watersports festivals, such as the national watersports festival and the Virgin kitesurfing armada, where last week they attempted the world record for the largest number of kitesurfers. They were trying to beat their own record. My Havant constituency therefore boasts a number of very attractive resorts, both in Hayling and in Emsworth. It has a rising population and a strong and growing economy. All those factors mean that we are on the lookout for improved infrastructure and a stronger rail network. I hope that the new franchise opportunity in 2017 will be a good chance for the train operating companies to make sure that they meet demand in a very profitable area for the infrastructure that we need. I know that other hon. Members here have similar stories to tell.
I hope that the new all-party parliamentary group on Hampshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire has taken a lead in setting up, and in which many colleagues in this Chamber will participate, will play an important role in helping to secure improved infrastructure for the area, working together with Ministers, the Government and the train operating companies.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South for securing this important debate and for reiterating on behalf of my constituents in Havant the need for stronger local and regional infrastructure and for an improved railway network to secure our future.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on securing this debate. The issue is important for my constituents as well as hers, but perhaps for different reasons. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) for setting out what I will now say: we need quicker, longer and better trains on the south-western route. I will briefly outline why I think that will benefit the residents of not only my constituency, but beyond.
In terms of quicker services, it has already been outlined that there is a major capacity issue between Clapham Junction and Waterloo, and also between Woking and Waterloo. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) pointed out, the investment required is important and we must not lose sight of that. I would argue that there are quick fixes that would deliver some improvements now.
We need to consider the planning for Crossrail 2 and how we can reduce the frequency of trains stopping at so many different stations, because dwell time at stations and braking and acceleration times are a major problem on the network, particularly between Woking and Waterloo where there are many stations, and it is important that some of the longer-distance trains do not stop at those stations in future. That would benefit everyone. It would speed up traffic on the railways and ensure that all trains—suburban or long distance—were more reliable. That would benefit us all here this morning. Crossrail 2 is a major project for the long term that we must consider. I firmly support it because if we provide additional capacity through Crossrail 2, it would free up capacity on existing railway lines for the residents of the constituencies served by longer-distance services, so I urge the Department for Transport to take that up.
On longer trains, it is good to see some of the investment that has gone in. We must remember that the old Network SouthEast—and the old services that existed under British Rail—had huge underinvestment. Although services today are not perfect, it is important that we remember how they once were and that a multi-billion-pound investment has gone into the railways, not only into rolling stock but into stations. We now need investment in longer platforms to allow for longer trains in the years ahead, not only on the mainline but on some of the branch lines that connect to the Waterloo services at Basingstoke or elsewhere. For example, the line that connects the London and south-western route with Reading is a key route linking to Crossrail 1, so that important point must not be lost sight of. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South will agree that it is right that we consider the branch lines that connect so many communities to London.
Further, it is important to consider longer trains. It is absolutely bizarre to see train services at peak times that are four or eight carriages long. The rail operators under the new franchise must be encouraged to ensure that we have 12 or even 15-carriage trains, using the longer platforms initiative, and they must ensure that more of the 444 class of trains are available in the years ahead. Those trains should be promoted and the infrastructure from Network Rail provided to enable that to happen.
I talked about better trains: potentially the quickest fix of all. It is good to see the investment to introduce wi-fi on some services. That is very welcome, but we must do much better. It is not good enough yet, partly because of the mobile signals available trackside. Those should be improved, and I know that Network Rail was looking at that issue, but I am told that it is not looking at it any more. I hope that it will again. We need to ensure that wi-fi is available on all train services. It is currently available only on certain trains, but certainly not on the majority that run through my constituency. That situation should change.
Also, we must ensure that more station improvements are made so that the customer experience is better. I welcome the investment that has been put into Fleet railway station to increase the amount of car parking. That is very important and ensures that more people get out of their cars and on to the trains, but there is still work to do. That process has not been perfect. I hope that Network Rail will learn lessons from it, but it is an important investment. I suggest we go further.
I have previously talked about the need to invest in footbridges that connect communities divided by railway lines. At Bramley in my constituency there is a need for a footbridge, particularly since railways are the victims of their own success. Level crossings are down more than ever because there is more traffic than ever. That is a good thing, but we must ensure that communities are not left behind.
Lastly, on better trains—I referenced this in terms of 444s a moment ago—as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) has said, the three-and-two seating on trains is not suitable for passengers on long-distance services. The reality is that the third seat is rarely used, which is not a good use of space on those services.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) for all her work in bringing this issue to the attention of the train operating companies and getting action and change so that our constituents can enjoy more comfortable and safer journeys?
Mr Jayawardena
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Our hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North has done a very good job in raising the issue. I am looking forward to working with her and colleagues to ensure that we take this issue forward, because the solution is more two-and-two seating and more longer trains. We have not got there yet and there is more work to do, but I am sure that the Government are listening.
The reality is that none of the fixes can happen overnight. I recognise that the Department for Transport must balance many competing interests, but I urge the Department to hear the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North: that this bit of the railway network contributes more money to the Exchequer than any other part of the network. It has done that consistently, year after year. Indeed, the old Network SouthEast was the only bit of the network at that time that contributed to British Rail. It is important that, while improvements are made elsewhere to grow the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole, we do not let the south-east of England or the London and south-western route fall behind. We need quicker, longer, better trains and I hope that the Government will act in the years ahead.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on securing this, her first Westminster Hall debate. She was fortunate in the ballot, but her constituents are also fortunate to have her representing them. I wish her a long and successful tenure in this House.
I would like to make a few points about the future of Island Line and then about connectivity to the Isle of Wight more generally. Under successive franchises, the physical assets of Island Line, which runs from Ryde Pier Head to Shanklin, have been left to decay disgracefully. The rolling stock—former underground trains—is now 70 or 80 years old and in such poor condition that guards can no longer pass safely between carriages to collect fares. The track is also in a very sorry state. The staff are hard-working and do their best in far from perfect circumstances. They deserve better and I will continue to work with others to make sure they get it.
Following the decision to end the South West Trains franchise in 2017, there has been much debate about the future of Island Line. Indeed, earlier this year, my hon. Friend the Minister kindly met a delegation from the island and subsequently arranged for senior officials to meet council representatives, for which I am grateful. Decisions must be made to find a long-term, sustainable future for the service and that is what the majority of Island Line passengers want, so I invite my hon. Friend to put it on the record again that she is committed to helping to find a long-term, sustainable and financially viable future for Island Line.
Last week, the council made the sensible decision to ask Christopher Garnett OBE to conduct an expert, thorough and independent review of opinions on Island Line’s future. I welcome his appointment and hope the Minister will join me in thanking him for taking up this challenge.
I want to make it crystal clear that I want to find the best way to retain a service from Shanklin to Ryde Pier Head. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to recognise the importance of the Solent local enterprise partnership. I am looking forward to meeting the chief executive of the LEP, Anne-Marie Mountifield, with the leader of the council next month. One thing I want to discuss with her is how best Mr Garnett’s work can be put into context in considering the wider needs of the island. I am sure it would be helpful if the Government’s support for that objective was placed on the record today.
The Isle of Wight is a wonderful place to live, but we face unique challenges. Connectivity is key to unlocking the island’s economic potential. I urge the Minister to remind South West Trains that it must work with the ferry companies for the remainder of this franchise period to ensure that their services dovetail effectively. Indeed, that should be a key requirement in the new franchise specification so that a new operator is under no illusions about the importance of connectivity. This is a joint responsibility, but I have been told that in the past train timetables have been altered without enough notice for the ferry companies to react. There needs to be much closer planning of services, so that islanders and visitors do not needlessly have to wait for the next ferry.
It is particularly frustrating if passengers have just missed a ferry by moments, as sometimes happens to those who catch the 9.35 train from Waterloo to Southampton Central, which arrives at 10.47, giving only 13 minutes to make the connection to the Red Jet terminal. There is no bus service at that time, so they must take a taxi, but if the train is a few minutes late they miss the Red Jet, which would have got them to West Cowes just before 11.30. Instead they must wait until 11.55 for the car ferry, which will finally deliver them to East Cowes just before 1 o’clock. If they had planned to catch the Red Jet and left their car in West Cowes, they cannot get across the river until 5 o’clock in the morning.
That sort of thing must be considered. It is one of the details that must be seared into the minds of those responsible for planning the rail service that links through to the Isle of Wight. The service from Waterloo to the island via Portsmouth is no better, with the last connecting service to Shanklin leaving Waterloo at 7.30. My plea to the Minister is that the new franchise operator is tasked with helping to find a sustainable future for rail services on the island, and also required to work more closely with the ferry companies to deliver better connectivity across the Solent.
Finally, I turn to a related technical issue that is of great interest to the operators and which I ask the Minister consider. Hovertravel has pointed out that some Isle of Wight stations do not appear as a destination for some parts of the national rail network. The Association of Train Operating Companies must ensure that all Isle of Wight destinations are included in national reservation systems and journey planning. To that end, will the Minister please ask the chief executive of ATOC to arrange a meeting with Hovertravel, Wightlink and Red Funnel to explore this problem and to consider how best it can be addressed?
I know the Minister appreciates the importance of good connectivity and how it contributes to economic growth, and I know she will do all she can to help to ensure the Isle of Wight is not excluded from that.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I join other hon. Members in commending our hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) for securing this important debate. I know that she is a tenacious campaigner in her constituency. I have seen at first hand how well she is respected by her local residents and we have heard today why that is: she has a tremendous grasp of this issue and all those facing Portsmouth, which is such an important part of our country. It is fantastic to see not only my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, but my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). The people of Portsmouth have a fantastic team representing them here.
An overwhelmingly powerful case has been made today for further investment in the rail line in our part of the country. The economic case is clear for all to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South referred to the southern powerhouse and I agree with her. Basingstoke has the 10th largest employment base in the south-east, and we are adding to that with the development of Basing View, which is right in the centre of town, next door to the station, and will create almost 3,000 new jobs in the coming years. Basingstoke has had one of the highest levels of house building in the country for the past 15 years. When others were not building, Basingstoke was.
When considering rail capacity and the capacity of the transport system in Hampshire, my concern is that north Hampshire is playing catch-up. We did not get the necessary investment in our roads and railways under the previous Government. I hope that the Minister will ally with us and advocate more investment. The south western main line has seen almost no significant investment since the 1930s despite having some of the most important towns and cities in our country along its route: Basingstoke, Guildford, Portsmouth, Southampton—the list goes on. We need to ensure that we have the right transport in place for not only business, but our constituents. We have made some progress, which I am sure the Minister will detail in her summing-up. I pay tribute to her for the interest and support that she has shown us as a group of Members of Parliament over the past few months.
I welcome the investment that is being made, but, as I said, we are playing catch-up. Waterloo is one of the last unmodernised stations in London, despite it seeing almost 100 million passenger movements every single year, a number which has doubled since privatisation. Peak commuter trains out of Woking are running at 173% of capacity, which equates to 500 extra people on a train, making it almost impossible to describe it as a comfortable journey. It is little wonder that the national passenger survey reports that just one in three passengers in our area feel that they get value for money when travelling by train.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) discussed getting more trains into his constituency, which neighbours mine so we share the same problems. I agree that we need more, faster and longer trains that need to be delivered not only in the next control period, but as part of the refranchising. We need more trains because there are further developments in signalling not only in Basingstoke, but in Woking. We need longer trains, because we still see trains that are not full length, such as the one that I caught to get to this debate today that could have been two carriages longer.
We are also not seeing trains in shoulder periods at anything like their full length. I particularly want the Minister to respond to that point, because we should be pressing South West Trains right now to increase the length of shoulder period trains, so that those who try to do the right thing and travel off peak are not rewarded with hideous overcrowding. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) asked me to make one or two remarks on her behalf on that point, because she, in her own inimitable style, wanted to ensure that people were made aware of the overcrowding experienced by her constituents on peak-time trains. She asked that such trains should carry the maximum number of carriages in order to avoid her having, as she says in her note to me,
“to occupy her favourite spot sitting on the floor by the loo”.
We regular commuters have all been there, because not only are no other seats available, but there is nowhere even to stand. Overcrowding on morning trains into London from Guildford starts at 5.50 am and continues until at least 9.45 am. The problems are chronic for my right hon. Friend’s constituents and I am happy to raise them on her behalf. I hope that the Minister can respond.
We have two clear opportunities here to get some change for our constituents and to ensure that they can see some light at the end of the tunnel—excuse the pun. The refranchising of South West Trains is coming up and we as a group of MPs will be working together to ensure that we get longer trains and that re-signalling work is brought forward so that more trains can be delivered for our constituents. There is also a much bigger opportunity, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), in the next control period—beyond the current control period 5—to get the economic message across to the Chancellor and the Treasury team. They need to understand that they must invest in the future of trains in our area so that we can continue to deliver the sort of economic growth that the country so badly needs. All the evidence shows that doing nothing is not an option.
My local enterprise partnership, enterprise M3, which does superb work and has already been incredibly successful in securing additional funding for local roads, has expressed concern about the lack of ambition in the plans set out in the Wessex route study. It also challenges what it describes as an excessive time period to improve an already chronically poor service.
I have two further points before I finish. Is the Minister content that the current Network Rail planning process for future capacity adequately takes into account the projections for house building in our area? While I certainly gained a clear impression that some growth in housing was being considered, I would like the Minister’s reassurance that the full scale of development is understood by Network Rail in its projections.
My final point builds on a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) about safety. Through questions that I have asked, I believe that there are no concerns regarding overcrowding on trains. The Office of Rail and Road deals with health and safety, but my concern is slightly different and is about accidents on the line. Will the Minister give us her thoughts on the work being done by rail operators and by Network Rail to ensure that we see fewer fatalities on the line? We have had a spate of fatalities on the line between Waterloo and my constituency that are tragic owing to the loss of life and the dreadful nature of such events. I want to be assured that train operators are doing everything that they can to minimise the issue and hopefully to remove it completely in the future.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South for securing this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. This represents the continuation of an important debate for our constituents throughout the south-east, and I know from the Minister’s great work that we need to secure her undoubtedly important support.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on introducing this important debate.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on how the issue not only affects Hampshire, but is a vital one for the west country as a whole, including my constituency. Furthermore, as I mentioned in last week’s broadband debate, my constituency is one of the least connected in the country. At a time when our digital arteries are furred up and clogged, the provision of physical infrastructure, including rail services from Somerset to London, is that much more important. It is therefore something of a joy for those of us who represent constituencies in the south-west to have the opportunity to shine a torch on the literal disconnectivity that continues to prove such an obstacle to inward investment. Hon. Members will recall George Eliot’s claim that
“you can’t hinder the railroad: it will be made whether you like it or not.”
Many in Somerton and Frome would wish that to be translated into reality, rather than remaining a distant aspiration, 150 years after the words were written.
All hon. Members welcome the Government’s support for the peninsula rail taskforce, which is a productive part of this Administration’s obvious commitment to bridging the gap in infrastructure investment between the south-west and other parts of Britain. Treasury figures show that, until recently, the people of the south-west, including the robust people of Somerton and Frome and other constituencies represented in the Chamber today, received the second-lowest rail funding per head in the country. Predictably, our funding is more than eight times less than that for Londoners and half that for the people of the north-west, and there is a yawning financial chasm between our funding and the funding for the north-east.
We need that to change if the south-west is to begin to realise its potential. Moreover, we need to be connected to what is already there. The unelectrified, 27-mile line between Castle Cary and Taunton is the longest stretch of track without a station in the entire west. Many of the residents of the inaccessible wilds around the towns of Somerton and Langport will be eagerly foraging through Hansard in the hope of discovering that they will be the ones to benefit from the Treasury’s renewal of the new stations fund. This week, however, their hopes have careered towards the buffers as Somerset county council has announced its unwillingness to submit a bid for a new station, apparently owing to the cost of putting it together. I will welcome any reassurance that local authorities and other interested parties such as local enterprise partnerships will be able to receive constructive support with the bidding process. To fall at that fence seems rather absurd.
Alongside new stations, I am also acutely aware of and, I must say, rather disconcerted by, the threat to the existing direct trains from Frome to London. It is good news to see that South West Trains is looking to steam in and open up the route but, from May 2017, Great Western Railway is planning to remove its direct trains from Frome to London. As the south-west refranchising process takes place, I hope such lack of investment is fully taken into account.
We must keep Frome fully connected. The removal of services would be a hugely retrograde step, in particular for a town enjoying such an extraordinary period of economic and social development. Since its creation, the railway has been instrumental in the march of social progress. The Government’s commitment to rebalance the economy and equip the south-west with the tools it needs to attract investment, grow business and assemble its own future success is therefore all to the good. In fact, the only thing that could act as a greater brake on the south-west’s development than a lack of infrastructure would be a paucity of ambition. That, I am happy to report, is not a problem with which we need to contend.
Today’s debate is a timely acknowledgement of the importance of rail services in realising that ambition. I look forward to working with others to foment the overflow of capital investment and deliver the connectivity that the west of England needs.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I echo my colleagues’ sentiments about highlighting the importance of the debate, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). It is a vital debate in the light of the new franchising process.
We have heard about the importance of the Eastleigh chord—I am the Member for Eastleigh. It is exciting to hear because that could unlock connectivity for us in the south. I have certainly had many letters from upset, abject commuters who feel that Eastleigh has long not had the strong voice that it should have in discussions of productivity and added value in the Solent region. Eastleigh needs a strong voice among the voices of Winchester, Portsmouth and Southampton to secure better train links, and to ensure that the big cities of the Solent region continue to bring in key investment for our constituencies to reflect the £374 million that our region gives to the Exchequer through our rail services. Frankly, many of us in the south-east parts of the south-west feel taken for granted. The debate is a chance for us to be heard by the Minister, who has visited Eastleigh. She has seen its importance as a railway town and what the railway gives to the local economy.
We must take notice of the Wessex route study, which reports 20% higher-than-expected demand. The new franchise gives us the investment opportunity. The Waterloo throat has long been the subject of conversation on the doorstep with my constituents, because it has an impact on their commute to London. We must all reflect on the fact that commuting is now longer, harder and more difficult, with people having to consider their home situations and to travel further than they might like.
I should also reflect on the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) about house building, which greatly concerns me, too. I already have a constituency of almost 80,000 residents. The 17,000 new homes likely to feature in the long-awaited new plan for the Eastleigh constituency could take the population to about 120,000. Frankly, our rail services will not be able to cope with that. That is only one little picture of hard-pressed commuters in the south.
I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) about branch lines. I find it baffling that we have so many empty trains heading along the track when people do not need them. Commuters, in particular those of Hedge End, feel that their voices should be heard more clearly.
Getting around Eastleigh is difficult. The Secretary of State for Transport came down for the election campaign. I told him that the roads are extremely bad and he said, “Everyone tells me that,” but he experienced it for himself. Many of my constituents have to head to Portsmouth, Southampton or Gosport in the morning. The train between my constituency and Portsmouth and Southampton takes well over an hour, so people take to their cars. The M27 simply cannot cope. We have heard that more than 100,000 people travel between junctions 8 and 9—I say “travel” but most of them spend a lot of time just sitting there. During the election campaign, there was an incident on the motorway and, for 12 hours, nobody could move. That is a big problem because our acute hospital services for Eastleigh are in the major cities. Travel is a problem for people to get their health services. We have no escape routes. We have narrow, old-fashioned rural roads, which are absolutely chocker. When I left my office on that particular day in the campaign at 11 o’clock at night, it took me about an hour and a half to go two miles. There are so many cars on our roads. The M27 corridor is creaking and the M3 is suffering.
Steve Brine
My hon. Friend and I share a bit of the Eastleigh borough—I represent the Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury part of it—and the local roads are a nightmare. Does she agree that it might be helpful if Eastleigh borough council got on with its local plan, which is currently a complete disaster zone?
Mims Davies
Absolutely—that is music to my ears, given that we are going to be waiting until November next year for a plan. Consistently, there is hostile development on green spaces. Those are not sustainable places on which to be building, and at the moment, a planning application for a car lot and a drive-through restaurant is going through for the old council offices. That is a sustainable place for more houses that would be within walking distance of Eastleigh train station.
In Eastleigh, we have Southampton airport, which is an important regional airport and a hub for passengers coming into the area from Guernsey in particular. It has been highlighted, however, that it is sometimes easier for people to get to Gatwick than to Southampton, given that they can take a train from Swanwick heading up towards Gatwick and fly out that way, rather than trying to get from Guernsey or the island into Southampton to fly. That is a big concern for me. We have many short commutes that should be eminently doable, but they are a major problem because of the number of people doing those commutes on a struggling motorway, with no rail option. We have an extremely important enterprise zone bid based around the airport. The local enterprise partnership is backing that, but it can work only if we get better rail services. We need bypasses and link roads, and I have been making the case for those very strongly.
In conclusion, as we have heard, the Transport Secretary has kindly visited my patch. He knows the importance of Eastleigh. It is a great place to work, live and do business, but it is a terrible place to get around. The new franchise in 2017 is a vital opportunity for all of us across Hampshire and the south-west to seize the opportunity and stand up for the Solent and the south-west corridor. We must deal with capacity, power supply and the Waterloo throat issue. We must fight for investment, recognise the demand increase and ensure that we enact as much as possible, as soon as possible, from the Wessex route study.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Having taken trains from your constituency in my youth, the only overcrowding I ever experienced was when The Guardian newspaper started to advertise Whitstable as a great place to go, and there was an overcrowding of hipsters in skinny jeans on the train on a Sunday night, getting back up to Islington.
In any event, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). It appears that the problem at her end of the line is the amount of time journeys take, whereas the problem at my end of the line, in Kingston and Surbiton, is the terrible overcrowding we suffer. The problem was aptly set out in a detailed Wessex route study, which referred to a predicted 40% growth in passenger volume over the next 30 years. That assumes we are at capacity now, but the reality is that we are not; we are 20% overcapacity on peak services. I am assuming that the 20% must be averaged out across the whole line, because if Members were to come to Surbiton station, they would see what looks like a lot more than 20% overcapacity on peak services. I invite the Minister, if she wants to see what it looks like, to accompany me to Surbiton station of a morning and see dangerous overcrowding on the platform and commuters having to be packed in like sardines. I note that I have to get on a train at 6.35 am to avoid that, and even then, I am not guaranteed a seat.
The people getting on these trains are taxpayers. In fact, many come from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), where residents of Elmbridge account for the highest amount of income tax paid to the Exchequer in the entire country. These people are taxpayers who pay for their tickets, but they have to be packed in like sardines to get into London in the morning, even if they get up at the crack of dawn to avoid it. Unlike the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South, there will be no complaints from Surbiton residents about the nature of the seats they have to sit on trains to London. Their complaints will be about not getting a seat at all. The nub of the problem is that at peak times, Waterloo station is at capacity. The Waterloo throat means that simply no more services can be run into Waterloo at peak times.
So what is the solution? The Wessex route study makes several suggestions, all of which I commend, but a number of them are simply sticking plasters. Extending the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo station is happening, but those will not be ready until 2017 or 2018. That will allow 10-car trains from my constituency into Waterloo, but it will only deal with the existing overcrowding and not with the projected growth in passenger volume.
In fact, the Wessex route study concludes that the only solution that will come close to dealing with the expected volume of additional passengers is Crossrail 2. Crossrail 2 would allow our existing commuter services to continue as they do now, while operating, in parallel, an entirely different route through a tunnel at Wimbledon and on to Victoria, Tottenham Court Road and King’s Cross. It would therefore connect this new concept of a southern powerhouse to the slightly older concept of the northern powerhouse. It would be a massive boon for commuters on the whole Wessex route, but particularly, for commuters in the incredibly overcrowded suburban stations, including all those in my constituency.
In conclusion, the overcrowding on peak services from my constituency is an absolute disgrace. The situation cannot be allowed to continue and I urge the Minister to support the proposals in the Wessex route study and to ensure that they are fed into the tender to make sure that overcrowding is dealt with and that passengers get value for money. I urge her to support Crossrail 2, which the Chancellor has hinted at his support for in recent weeks and months. I also urge the Minister to work with colleagues here, as she already has been doing, to ensure that between now and 2030—when Crossrail 2, if it is approved, will go online—there is a solution to the overcrowding that will plainly continue over that time, and which, unfortunately, is not addressed by any of the sticking plasters that we have seen proposed so far.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your stewardship in this Chamber, Sir Roger. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond) on securing today’s debate. Having previously brought similar debates to this House for my own area in Greater Manchester, I know just how important rail travel and public transport are to constituents and how appreciative they are when their Members of Parliament raise such matters.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), responding on behalf of the Government. When this debate was first announced, it caused considerable excitement in Her Majesty’s Opposition’s transport team. Would, we wondered, the debate be responded to by the rail Minister or the Minister for Portsmouth? I can only conclude that that decision was made at the highest levels of Government, but I am delighted to see the rail Minister here today.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth South made clear in her opening speech, rail services in Portsmouth and the south-west face several issues. When the Minister replies to the debate, I am sure that she will have been left in no doubt about where improvements are needed, and I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South receives the answers that she requested.
Some of the problems that have been raised in this debate are simply down to poor levels of service, whereas some are down to poor decisions that the Government have made. Others, however, are due to the poor system we have for running rail services in the UK, and I will say something about all those issues in my reply.
The record of this Government, and indeed, of the previous Conservative-led coalition Government, is much less favourable than they like to make out. I often find that the rhetoric that we hear in the House of Commons on rail matters simply does not match the experience of our constituents and passengers, and often shows a real disconnect from their everyday commuting reality. It is one thing for us to sit here in Westminster and debate the performance of rail services in Portsmouth and the south-west, but perhaps those who are best placed to judge it are the rail users themselves. Unfortunately, the results do not make for good reading, with a steady decrease in passenger satisfaction, which the hon. Lady referred to, and which I hope the Minister will address in her reply. We have seen decreases in passenger satisfaction across the board in Portsmouth, with perhaps the most striking statistic being that just 21% of commuters believe that their services are good value for money. When taxpayers are making a net payment of nearly £4 billion a year to the railways as a whole, on top of ever rising fares, the fact that passenger satisfaction is decreasing should cause great alarm to the Minister. I look forward to hearing how she intends to rectify that.
Rail users in Portsmouth and the south-west have not been immune to the trend of rising fares either, with commuters in particular being hit hard. By next year, the cost of a season ticket from Portsmouth to Eastleigh will have increased by 25% since 2010, and the cost of a season ticket from Portsmouth to London by 26%, a rise of more than £1,000. The mixture of rising fares and decreasing satisfaction in Portsmouth is clearly not a good combination and suggests that real change is needed.
The Government have announced plans to increase fares only by inflation during this Parliament, with the Minister herself saying recently that that policy would cost about £700 million a year in lost revenue, but we have not been offered an explanation of how the Government will make up that significant fall in revenue. My fear is that it will be another broken promise after the electrification fiascos. I hope that at the very least she can give us a guarantee today that services will not be cut to pay for that panicked pre-election announcement.
Labour Members think that passengers should simply have access to clearer ticketing and be able to get a better deal than they can currently. Fares and ticketing structures in this country are some of the most complex in Europe, and it is passengers who often pay the additional price.
There is, of course, as we have heard today, another scourge of train passengers in the south-west—overcrowding. That problem is faced by many services around the country, including in my own area in Greater Manchester. Clearly, extra capacity is desperately needed. The previous Labour Government invested more in the railways in real terms, especially in Portsmouth and the south-west, than any previous Government. In 2013, two Portsmouth commuter trains were named as among the 10 most overcrowded rail services in the country; both had load factors of more than 150%. Since then, services to and from Portsmouth have not featured in the top 10. However, before we start celebrating, it would probably be safe to assume that Portsmouth’s non-inclusion reflects greater levels of overcrowding elsewhere rather than better services for Portsmouth commuters.
Franchising fiascos have also become a theme under this Government, as they were under the previous, Conservative-led Government. We saw the shambles of the west coast main line franchising process, which had a knock-on effect on other services, and the disappointing decision not to keep the profitable east coast service publicly owned. Yet again, Portsmouth and the south-west have had experience of this problem. In July of this year, just two months after the Government took office, the Minister’s Department announced that negotiations to agree a direct award for South West Trains with Stagecoach had broken down. As a result, the franchising timetable has had to be redrawn. Most concerning of all is that the Department for Transport spent more than £800,000 on contract negotiations with Stagecoach, yet failed to reach a satisfactory outcome. I hope that the Minister, in her reply, can confirm whether the Department has recovered those costs and can expand some more on why the negotiations broke down.
It appears that the Minister has not seriously considered the possibility of using Directly Operated Railways. She should need no convincing of DOR’s record, given that it delivered record passenger satisfaction and punctuality scores on east coast services and there was a public outcry when the franchise was handed to Virgin. The Government simply do not have a good record on franchise negotiation. I suggest that to avoid the problem, they could simply come round to the Labour party’s way of thinking, which is that we should bin the franchising system altogether, because it is simply too costly and inefficient and creates an inflexible railway unable to meet the needs of passengers.
Another recurring theme under this Government has been the troubled approach to electrification—something that the south-west has also suffered from. The Labour Government committed to the electrification of the Great Western main line in the south-west back in 2009, but under this Government the cost has escalated drastically and the project is now delayed. Labour Members have repeatedly warned that the Great Western main line electrification is in danger because of rising costs. The estimated cost is now three times higher than in 2011. It is currently a staggering £1.74 billion. The Government have attempted to lay some of the blame at Network Rail’s door, but the Minister must also take responsibility for not confirming the project until July 2012, meaning that essential planning work was delayed. Even Network Rail’s head of long-term planning and funding has alluded to that, saying that it did not have the level of confidence that it might have wished at the start.
All this is becoming too usual, and it is rail users who will suffer because of the delays and cost increases. The faster trains and increased capacity that south-west rail users want and hon. Members have requested here today will not be delivered on time. What will particularly irk passengers will be not seeing improvements in rolling stock. The Government’s plans to replace uncomfortable and inaccessible Pacer trains on branch lines in the south-west depend on the success of the electrification programme. If the Great Western electrification project is significantly delayed, passengers in the south-west are likely to suffer with poor rolling stock for years—stock that the Government have agreed is unacceptable for my constituents in the north of England.
I do not expect the Minister to offer any solutions to that today, as the Government have previously said that until the Hendy report is published they cannot give any credible promises on the delivery timetables of any other projects. I would be grateful, however, if the Minister could confirm in her reply the date on which the Hendy report is due to be published, as one would hope that it would be available in time for the comprehensive spending review.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth South on initiating today’s debate. I completely understand why she and her constituents are unhappy with aspects of rail services in Portsmouth and the south-west. Clearly, the Government have much work to do to tackle overcrowding, to stop drastic fare rises, to improve rolling stock, to combat decreasing passenger satisfaction and to deliver planned infrastructure projects. Labour Members want answers from the Minister as to how the Government intend to address those matters. In the Labour party, we believe that there is a better way of running our railways—we put passengers at the centre of the network and learn lessons from successful rail networks in other countries. I look forward to continuing this conversation with all hon. Members in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Claire Perry)
It is, as always, a pleasure to be part of a debate that you are chairing, Sir Roger. I extend thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond). I will go on to give a detailed response to her questions, but first I want to welcome the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who I believe is my newly confirmed shadow, to his position. I will not try to answer most of his questions today; I would rather focus on the subject of the debate. I would be delighted if he called an Opposition day debate on the railways. I would be delighted to have a conversation over the Dispatch Box about the Labour Government electrifying less than 10 miles of track in 13 years. We will do many times more than that in this Parliament. Indeed, the Labour Government had the chance to get rid of the Pacers that so upset his constituents in 2003 and 2004 and chose not to. It is this Government who will take the railways forward. I would be delighted to have that conversation with him in more detail on a more generic level.
This was a fantastic debate. These debates are often hard to listen to and respond to because they are full of superb facts. Before getting on to the meat of the conversation that my hon. Friend started, I want to talk about some of the other questions that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) highlighted extremely well the fact that this is about not just London-based connectivity, but east-west connectivity. In fact, regional rail now has the highest growth rates across the rail network. People are increasingly choosing to use rail for short journeys as well as long ones, and I think that it is incredibly important that that is recognised in future investment planning.
I have already had many good conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) on this subject. He likes to analyse the economics of the railways, which is always very welcome. I was pleased that he recognised that a lot of investment is going into these services. Indeed, the works at Waterloo, costing more than £350 million, are designed to alleviate capacity problems. That, plus the new rolling stock commitment that will apply to some of the lines in the South West franchise area, is designed to deal with growth up until the mid-2020s and is a necessary precursor to additional work that needs to happen to lift capacity further on the Portsmouth line. My hon. Friend also talked about the importance of wi-fi on trains—a personal commitment and interest of mine. I can assure him that the Government are committed to introducing free wi-fi on all classes by 2018, either through the franchising process or through in-franchise changes. It is extremely important, particularly on longer distance journeys.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) once again made very telling points. I am happy to confirm again my commitment and the Government’s commitment to finding a long-term sustainable solution for Island Line and to pay tribute to Mr Garnett, who has worked so hard on this. I am also happy to ask ATOC to look at the issue of ticketing and joining-up of timetabling. There may be some technical issue, but I am happy to ensure that we explore that further. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done for a line that is lovely to look at, but perhaps is not delivering some of the benefits that could be delivered. I urge Isle of Wight Council to continue its good work on that process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke very eloquently, as always, about the importance of dealing with crowding, particularly in fast growing areas. She raised the issue of trains during the peak shoulders. The challenge with that is that if we buy lots of trains to run into London during the peak, they are in London, not in Basingstoke, when we want them to be full of people—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the microphones in this Chamber are rather more directional than those in the main Chamber. The hon. Lady is off the microphone, which is making things difficult for those responsible for the sound.
Claire Perry
I apologise. Do you want me to shout more loudly, Sir Roger? I shall speak with passion.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
It might be helpful if the hon. Lady were to address the microphone.
Claire Perry
I am so sorry. I was trying to address Members, but you are quite right, Sir Roger.
This is an important point about how we maximise the capacity of the existing rolling stock. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke for raising the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who often shares those views with me by text when she is in her favourite seat. I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) has done assiduously over the years, focusing on the challenges of the different sorts of rolling stock.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked me two questions. First, she asked whether I am content with the planning process, and whether I think that it joins up growth projections and challenges sufficiently. My answer is, “partly”. I know that local authorities feed into the Network Rail route study work, but I am unconvinced that we have got things right across government in terms of the economic value added that a well-designed transport network can bring. We are really working to solve that challenge. It is important that we get representations from local Members, local enterprise partnerships and communities so that we can see where that growth comes from.
My right hon. Friend raised the sad challenge of reducing fatalities on the railway. I am happy to confirm that we have the safest railway in Europe, but she is right to say that the number of fatalities is growing, with people often choosing to end their lives on the tracks. There is an enormous amount of work going on with operators, Network Rail and Samaritans to try to reduce that. I want to mention how dreadful that experience can be for the train drivers who witness it. It is a terrible problem, which is a source of enormous delay on the network and of terrible trauma for the victims’ families and the drivers.
Everybody, including me, hates three-plus-two seating. It is awful, and we all know that. The challenge on the lines we are discussing is whether you design for inner-London routes, such as those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), or for long-distance routes. At the moment, the franchise has been doing its best with the rolling stock to try to design a system that minimises crowding, although I know that it does not always feel like that. It would be possible to remove the seats, as has been done on trains on the Great Western network, but then more people will be unable to sit. It is a conundrum, and I may be able to mention some of the solutions later.
Many hon. Members who are present today have taken me around their constituencies and showed me the trains, and they continue to campaign assiduously for transport improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) managed to include in his speech furred-up arteries, George Eliot and Somerset County Council, which was an impressive achievement. I am happy to ask my officials to work with Somerset County Council on how to get a bid for a new station together. That is absolutely imperative, and we know that it has been done very successfully by Taunton, just down the road. The money for that project came out of a growth fund deal, but it is possible to bid for a new station and doing so would be valuable. I would be happy to see how we might be able to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) talked about the importance of the Eastleigh chord, and described well the need to join up transport. We need to think not about road or rail in isolation, but about what is best for the local communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was right to say that the local plan is the way to encapsulate that, and I know that he will urge the local authorities to get on with it.
Steve Brine
We have covered many subjects over the past hour and a half, but we have not talked about the Government’s commitment to smarter ticketing and part-time season tickets, which might have a significant impact by alleviating some overcrowding, although only some. Does the Minister still have her passion for that?
Claire Perry
Yes, and I will race through my final comments and come on to what I think are some of the solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out what a balancing act we face, because train usage across the country is rising, and trains that start off empty become crowded. Indeed, I have travelled on some of the top 10 most crowded trains, because I tend to go out and mystery shop them. It is not encouraging to be unable to sit down on the journey into London at 6 o’clock in the morning, work for 12 or 14 hours and then go home. People deserve better.
What are the possible solutions? I will abandon my speech now—when I do so, it always makes my officials incredibly nervous—and talk about what could be done. There is a cascade of things that can be done to increase capacity. We can work on existing lines, and do the sorts of work talked about in the Wessex route Study. Such work is important, and it is being looked at, reviewed and prioritised. We need to ensure that everybody understands the costs and benefits of such work for economic value added, not just for transport users. Such works are always expensive and difficult, because they involve so much disruption.
We can do things such as digital enhancements on the railway. When it comes to the number of train paths, the railways are now full, but if we can use digital technology to reduce the time between trains, we will be able to run more of them. That is a big long-term investment plan for Network Rail. Building new lines is often cheaper than expanding existing lines. We heard a lot of mention of Crossrail 2, a vital project that will help to alleviate congestion—as will Crossrail 1—in the metro and suburban areas.
We can buy new trains. Indeed, many new trains are being delivered to the South West franchise, but what tends to happen is that they are built to satisfy demand at peak times, and they run empty for much of the day. Is that an effective thing to do? Would it be possible to use those trains better? That brings me to the point about part-time season tickets. Providing incentives for people to change their journey patterns and move around outside peak time can be cost-effective and help us to use train capacity better.
Finally, we can, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire mentioned, change stopping patterns. It is completely possible to run a very high speed, non-stop train to Portsmouth if it does not stop anywhere else. As we move forward and consider the consultation, we have to ask ourselves that sort of question. What is the right journey pattern for the demand? Is it right to devolve more services to TfL, to deal with some of the inner-London metro demand and outer-London demand, in order to run services that are better fitted for long-distance users?
What are the right solutions? I do not know, and I do not think that we, individually, know. Part of the problem in the industry is that people work in silos when they make decisions, so there will be an operational solution, a solution for passengers and perhaps a political solution. We need to get the right people in the right place to make those decisions, to make sure that the money is there and that organisations can deliver. That is why the Hendy review is so important. We need to take politics out of the process, which is why I so welcome the appointment of Lord Adonis; I think he is a good man to do the long-term infrastructure planning. We need to work together to solve some of the knotty problems. There is a huge amount of financial commitment to the railways, and we are committing to the biggest investment programme since Victorian times, which is a vital part of delivering economic growth. Collectively as Members, working with our local communities, local businesses, my officials, Network Rail and the operators, we can come up with the right solutions.
What do we need to do? First, we need to keep all the information coming in in response to the route study. That will determine the near-term investment plans, which cover the next five to 10 years. Secondly, the consultation on the franchise process will start before Christmas, and it is absolutely vital that we have a real, in-depth analysis of what we want. Is this the right time to start putting in some express services that do not stop between some of the big conurbations, with a consequent possible loss of services in terms of stopping patterns? Can the network collectively work that out? Following that consultation, the invitation to tender will go out before April 2016, and the franchise will start in 2017.
I do not know what the right solution is, and I do not believe that any individual holds it. Collectively, however, working together across the boundaries that have built up in the railway sector between operators, the network and regulators, we can come up with a better solution. The experience of passengers must be put front and centre, because the railway is not about boxes running about on rails. I was told by somebody who has left the industry that if it were not for the passengers, the timetabling would be perfect. I found that both amusing and incredibly offensive, because it suggested that we were talking about somebody’s train set rather than a transport system that millions of people rely on to get to work and to get back home to their families.
My plea to team Hampshire—I am delighted that it has an identity—and also to team Somerset, team Wiltshire, team Stalybridge and Hyde—
Claire Perry
And to team Isle of Wight. My plea is that I hope that, by working together, we can come up with a better solution. We want to invest in the railways. They are a vital part of delivering local, regional and national economic growth. We are in an exciting place, because we have finally realised the importance of railway investment in delivering the economic growth that we want for our constituents.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South once more. With her eloquent and intelligent speech, she auditioned extremely well for my job. I commend her for securing the debate.
Mrs Drummond
I thank my hon. Friend for turning up. I think that there are solutions to the problem. I will be pursuing it, and I am sure that we will all work together on that. As part of that, I will write a report to the Chancellor to see whether we can get some funding as well. Thank you, Sir Roger, for your chairmanship of the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered rail services to Portsmouth and the South West.
UK Science Budget
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK science budget and the 2015 Spending Review.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Let me say at the outset that the Government face a difficult situation in balancing budgets, but scientific research is one of the UK’s biggest assets. It has transformed the way we go about our everyday lives—from the technologies we use to communicate to the tools we use to diagnose, prevent and treat illness. Stable, long-term Government investment—capital and resource—will cement this country’s global competitiveness, give confidence to the private sector, make the UK an even more attractive place to do business, increase employment opportunities and deliver wide-ranging societal and health benefits.
In recent weeks, we have seen the news of a simple blood test that can rapidly diagnose whether chest pain is being caused by a heart attack. For the 1 million people suffering from chest pain who visit the UK’s accident and emergency departments each year, the test will make a real difference at a distressing time. A new study, which was funded by the British Heart Foundation, shows that the test can diagnose a heart attack much more rapidly than current tests, allowing patients to receive the treatment they need or to return home quickly, avoiding an anxious and sometimes unnecessary wait. The test would not only improve patient care, but free up capacity in our busy A&E departments, saving the NHS money.
Such breakthroughs have made, and continue to make, a profound difference to our lives as individuals and to the UK economy as a whole. If we are to keep hearing such stories, we must protect investment in UK research. The Government have an opportunity to renew their commitment to it in this spending review.
A successful research base relies on stable, long-term investment by a network of funders across the public and private sectors. Each funder has an important role to play, and if one moves away, the others would be unable to step in and compensate. The Government are a key part of that funding network. By providing underlying support to our world-class universities and research institutes, as well as individual support to talented researchers, Government investment creates a healthy research environment, in which industry and charities can invest.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that, with the new £235 million Sir Henry Royce Institute and the £65 million Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre in Manchester, and the £113 million cognitive computer research centre in Warrington, continuing to support UK sciences is an essential part of securing the northern powerhouse?
Stuart Andrew
As a northern MP, I would certainly agree. That just goes to show that this budget can really help us achieve more than one of our aims.
The Government also provide funding in partnership with industry and charitable funders to bring together the power and expertise needed to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing society and to develop the UK’s expertise in areas of real promise, and we have seen just how powerful such joint funding can be. We have pioneering projects such as the UK Biobank, which is now following the health of half a million people across the UK, and the Farr Institute, which is unlocking the full potential of health data.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The innovation at Queen’s University in Belfast includes perfecting new drugs for cancer, heart disease and diabetes. It is important that we have a relationship with not only Queen’s University but universities across the UK mainland, and I want us to make sure that these moneys will enable that to happen, so that everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? I am sure he does, but I just wanted to ask him.
Stuart Andrew
I have no choice—of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right: this is about supporting the whole United Kingdom.
Evidence has shown that public sector investment in research encourages the private sector to invest too. Analysis has shown that an extra £1 of public funding would give rise to an increase in private funding of between £1.13 and £1.60.
The Government’s decision to protect science in 2010, at a time of significant savings, has been appreciated by the sector. It has enabled researchers to continue to push the boundaries of research and to transform exciting scientific discoveries into tangible benefits for patients and the economy. However, there are concerns that, with the true value of the science budget eroding, and with more savings in the pipeline, research could be at risk. Almost 200 life science organisations recently raised those concerns in a letter to the Chancellor.
Why should the Government invest in research? First, research saves lives. Across a number of different conditions, we have seen huge improvements in the range of treatments available, with people surviving conditions that would have been death sentences in the past. According to statistics from the British Heart Foundation, seven out 10 people now survive a heart attack.
The UK punches above its weight in terms of the outcomes its research sector achieves relative to the amount of money invested overall. On many measures, the sector is the most efficient in the world, and strikingly better than many of its competitors. The excellence of the UK science and research base results from universities’ autonomy and responsiveness; the competitive, dynamic funding system; the dual-support funding mechanism; an effective governance and research infrastructure; and the critical role played by universities in the science, research and innovation ecosystem.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the changing nature of the research model in the life sciences industry generally, it is even more vital that the Government maintain their investment in universities? Such is the burden of regulation and the investment model required by the private sector that molecules drugs therapies, often co-researched by the private sector, have to spend much more time in academia. If we withdraw funding at that stage, the research will simply not happen and will not transfer elsewhere.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important and valid point, which emphasises the points I am making about Government investment in this important area.
An investment in research is an investment in our economy. The UK life sciences industry generates an estimated annual turnover of £56 billion and employs 183,000 people across the UK. Investment encourages innovation, attracts business to the UK and leads to treatments and technologies that allow us all to lead healthier, more productive lives.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is making an excellent case for science. He will know that the Science and Technology Committee is conducting an inquiry into the science budget. Many witnesses have expressed concern that total investment in research and development in the UK is historically low and falling. Does my hon. Friend agree with them that there is a case for a road map to increase R and D, even though the situation cannot be reversed immediately? That would not only ensure that we retained our competitiveness internationally, but send an important signal to investors that we are a good place to invest in.
Stuart Andrew
The Chair of the Select Committee is absolutely right. We want to maintain our position as world leaders in this area, and it is important that we do that.
The Government have recognised the link between R and D spending and national productivity, and they have even highlighted science and innovation as a key driver in their plan to make the UK a more productive nation. The spending review therefore gives the Government a real opportunity to invest the resource needed to deliver on that promise, creating a more prosperous nation.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is making a powerful argument. He touched on the important issue of making the UK a more productive nation. The UK population is set to increase by 15% over the next 20 years, and we will need to produce more than 60% more food by 2050. Does he agree that science plays a key role in our agricultural sector in terms of meeting that demand for food and the need to increase production, which has been plateauing for many years? Does he also agree that the Government need to reaffirm their support for the agri-tech sector over the long term?
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful for that intervention. I think I should have applied for a longer debate, given the number of Members who are here. As a fellow Yorkshire MP, and given the importance of the agri-food industry for our county, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s points.
Groups such as Universities UK are concerned that, while the Government have made a commitment of capital expenditure for the forthcoming spending period, they have yet to make any commitment of revenue expenditure, which would allow the sector to make the best use of both new and existing facilities and infrastructure. What will we lose if the Government do not maintain their commitment? Frankly, if we have less, clearly we can do less. The UK science sector has been very good at making efficiencies, through equipment sharing and team science, but there is a finite amount of adjustment that it can make, and further cuts will have a damaging impact on the ability of the sector to conduct world-class research.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time in this short debate. He makes a good case about the quality and high impact of United Kingdom science, but does he agree that the target that the Government should really set is to increase the amount of money we spend on science above the 1.8% of GDP that we spend at the moment, and to bring it much closer to 3% of GDP? That is the European Union’s international standard, and some of our competitors are heading in that direction very quickly.
Stuart Andrew
I fear that the hon. Gentleman has just ruined the end of my speech, but it will be worth emphasising the point.
The goal of eliminating the deficit is, of course, necessary, but some universities have already felt the effect of funding reductions. Any further reductions would, in the Russell Group’s words, be
“entirely counterproductive for the long-term health of the economy and risk losing the UK’s competitive advantage”.
The benefits of research are not a secret. We are not the only country that has realised that research is a worthwhile investment. Other countries are substantially increasing their support for research and development. If we are unable to maintain our world-leading reputation, we risk falling behind and losing talent and business overseas, or to different sectors altogether. We saw that in the 1980s, when cuts in research drove many UK scientists to the USA. We do not want that to happen again.
We still have further to go. Cardiovascular disease causes more than a quarter of all deaths in the UK, and the cost of premature death, lost productivity, hospital treatment and prescriptions relating to cardiovascular disease is estimated at £15 billion to £19 billion each year. We have made huge improvements to our health and wellbeing, but our successes bring with them new challenges. When I worked in the children’s hospice movement I saw many times how children with complex and once fatal conditions now survive into adulthood; we must discover how to keep them healthy throughout their lives. As people live longer, we need to learn how to manage chronic conditions, so that we are not only extending but improving life.
Scientific research has brought us a long way in improving the health and wealth of the UK. Through continued Government investment, maintained in line with inflation, we can build on the successes that have been achieved so far and work towards a UK that realises its full potential. Universities UK has suggested, as did the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), that we should seek to match the level of expenditure of our competitor countries; otherwise there is a risk that our relative research strength will decline. Using the same group of comparator countries identified in a recent benchmarking study conducted on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the overall investment level required would be 2.9% of GDP. That level of total investment would also be broadly consistent with the commitment made in the Lisbon treaty for investment across the European Union of 3%, with one third coming from public sources. To support that overriding objective, the Government should set out a 10-year investment strategy, with a view to securing an above-inflation rise in public investment in science and research over that period. That would help to maintain our reputation across the globe, and our lead in so many fields which will improve all our lives.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing this debate, on a subject that is vital to the country’s future. As has already been said, we are a global leader in research and development, and the city of Cambridge is at the heart of that leadership.
A few years ago, when AstraZeneca was deciding where to relocate, it chose Cambridge; but if it had not been Cambridge it would have been somewhere outside the UK. That is the risk that the Government run if the rumours that we hear are true, and if they put at risk the long-running consensus on science funding. Let us be clear that the ring fence during the previous Parliament was not great; it was actually a substantial cut in real terms over the lifetime of the Parliament. Stop-start policies on capital funding also caused problems. The sector just about managed to survive that, but it has a clear view of what future funding cuts would do.
Last Friday I visited the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge. It works with Alzheimer’s Research UK and is doing groundbreaking work that will help us to treat dementia. It is hugely important, but there is a strong message from the institute: any cut in public funding puts the associated private funding at risk. Just outside Cambridge, the Babraham Research Institute is another world-leading life sciences institute. It has 350 members working alongside 60 companies employing more than 600 people. The institute said in written evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology that
“the current level of funding will not sustain the UK’s existing science and research capability, whilst any reduction would be extremely damaging…it is likely that world leading scientists will leave the UK for other countries such as Germany where there is increased investment into science funding.”
I put those comments to Professor Rick Rylance, who chairs Research Councils UK, at a sitting of the Committee. He agreed that we are close to a tipping point and he warned that a time would come when the future would be “in jeopardy”. Those are serious warnings from senior people.
We all appreciate that spending decisions are difficult, but if we are truly to win the race to the top, we need a bigger knowledge economy, with high-skilled, well-paid jobs. I remind hon. Members that the Government’s own science and innovation strategy promised to inject £1.1 billion of capital into the sciences, at least in part to ensure that there would be what they called “adequate resource funding”. I never thought I would quote the current Chancellor with approval, but he delivered a major speech in April 2014 at the wondrous Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, and it is worth reminding colleagues of his promise that
“support for and application of science is right at the centre of our long term economic plan.”
That support must, in my view at least, mean maintaining the science budget. I strongly encourage the Minister and Conservative Members to remind the Chancellor of that promise as the Government consider these important decisions.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on obtaining this important debate, and I agree with all the points he made.
Time is short and I will say just two things. GlaxoSmithKline’s headquarters are in my constituency and it employs many local people. There are also many science-based employers down the road in Hammersmith. There have been comments today about universities’ concern about the fact that there is to be no inflation growth in public spending on science, which is effectively a cut. I am also concerned about the lack of investment in and encouragement of science, technology, engineering and maths in schools. We need to invest in that—in schools and colleges—to support and encourage young people not only to start but to continue with STEM subjects.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) on securing the debate on a subject that is being explored in great detail at the moment by the Science and Technology Committee. I am glad to see the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), here, along with other members of the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey raised the issue of medical research and the contributions of the British Heart Foundation to that. I was pleased earlier this month to see BHF employees in Manchester during the Conservative party conference, and I enjoyed looking at their stand and hearing at first hand about the high-quality research that the organisation is doing on cardiovascular diseases. The BHF’s research remains one of this country’s great success stories, and it has a long history going all the way back to the pioneering heart surgery technique for babies developed by Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub in the 1970s, which is still used today, all the way through to the more recent and ongoing improvements in heart attack diagnosis that are helping to save lives in Britain and across the world.
Research investment in medicine and cardiovascular disease is an important illustration of the strength of our science base. The investment we are making as a country through charities, Government and pharmaceutical companies is helping to ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of science and research in Europe and throughout the world. I should like to point out a few examples of that investment. The Medical Research Council currently spends around £20 million a year. That, coupled with the £49 million spent by the National Institute for Health Research, which is funded by the Department of Health, makes the UK the top contributor among EU member states to cardiovascular research. We are building on that base. This year, we committed to fund the Academy of Medical Sciences, alongside the other national academies, for the first time, granting it £0.5 million.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
We are talking about what we are spending, but we are not talking about what we are saving. We are developing the life sciences, agritech—agritech is hugely important to rural constituencies such as mine, and my constituency is on the edge of the Cambridge phenomenon—biotech, digital health and so on, and we need to take those savings into consideration. If we lose that research abroad, we will lose the savings, too.
Joseph Johnson
Indeed, this is a good investment, which is why the Government have been supporting our science base over time. We recognise the huge economic benefits that it brings to the country.
I was in the middle of describing the investments we are making in cardiovascular and other medical technologies research. We have supplemented the ongoing spending of the MRC and the NIHR by announcing a couple of new innovation institutions, which will be extremely helpful to the sector in developing new medical technologies. We have just announced a new medicines technologies catapult, which will be based at Alderley Park in Cheshire. We have also announced the headquarters of the new precision medicine catapult in Cambridge, which will have one of its five centres of excellence in the north of England. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) focused on excellence in Cambridge. I am happy to tell him that I was in Cambridge last week and saw the laboratory of molecular biology. I was as impressed as his comments would have led me to expect—it is an extraordinary centre, and we have every intention of continuing to ensure that it remains one of the world’s leading research institutes.
The examples that Members have already cited, such as Cambridge and the scientific centres in the northern powerhouse, are good examples of why Britain is such a powerhouse in the world of science and why we want to ensure that we make Britain the best place in the world to do science. Our global scientific impact is completely out of proportion with both our population and the size of our research spend as a share of global research and development expenditure. The UK punches well above its weight.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does the Minister agree that, although we are doing extremely well in science at the moment, there is concern in the scientific community that emerging markets in east Asia and India will overtake the UK’s scientific research if funding is not continued and increased?
Joseph Johnson
We have discussed that question at great length in Select Committees and, of course, we understand that the impact of our science spend is a function both of the efficiency of our science base and of the inputs that go into it—the amount of money that we spend every year on science. The hon. Lady will recognise that we underscored our commitment to science in the last Parliament by ring-fencing expenditure at £4.6 billion at a time of discretionary savings across the rest of Government activity to the tune of £98 billion. Furthermore, she will know from our previous discussions and from Government documents that we have committed to a road map for capital expenditure all the way to 2021 to the tune of £1.1 billion per annum, which will give businesses, researchers and charities the certainty they need about the role that the Government intend to play in investing in our science base.
Nicola Blackwood
The Minister is right to sing the praises of our science community. We are a science superpower in terms of quality and impact, but the Science and Technology Committee has heard widespread concerns about time lag and how historical investment is perhaps leading to our current strength. Does he share the concerns expressed on both sides of the House about the low level of current R and D investment? Will he commit to a long-term plan to raise that investment?
Joseph Johnson
We have set out a road map taking us all the way to 2021, and it provides considerable certainty on capital. Of course, a spending review is coming up 25 November, so it would be rash of me to embark on commitments here and now.
Joseph Johnson
I would not want to do that for obvious reasons. I do not agree with the generally pessimistic tone of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, because investment in science is increasing. The Government play their part, but we should not forget the important part played by the business community in R and D, nor the part that R and D tax credits play in enabling business to make that supporting investment.
I told the Select Committee the other day that the value of our R and D tax credits has now increased to £1.8 billion a year, enabling more than 11,000 businesses to do innovative research. That is significantly up on the previous year, when the figure was only about £1.4 billion. The taxpayer is making a substantial contribution to enabling R and D in this country; business R and D expenditure is also up. In 2013, UK businesses spent a total of £18.4 billion on R and D, an increase of 8% in cash terms on 2012, so it is wrong to focus only on the Government’s share, which we protected in the last Parliament and for which we have outlined a trajectory to 2021 on the capital side. There will be a real-terms increase in capital spend. We are putting in place an ecosystem to make it possible for business and others to continue their investment.
Nicola Blackwood
I think the Minister has misunderstood me. I intended to ask for a road map for both public and private investment. I agree that one is useless without the other.
Joseph Johnson
The 3% target is an EU target that may or may not be relevant to the UK environment. Targets, in and of themselves, are abstract things. What is relevant is the policy levers that we have put in place to drive behavioural change in companies and charities in order to increase investment. A target in itself achieves nothing, and I do not want to indulge in such targets.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the capacity of British science to step up and increase the level of top-quality science? With 20% of excellent research grant applications currently being turned down, we have an opportunity in Britain to improve our productivity greatly over the next five years.
Joseph Johnson
Indeed. Our science base is productive and very efficient. For every £1 the Government spend on R and D, private sector productivity rises by 20p a year in perpetuity. We see clear public benefits in R and D, and we appreciate the important role of public investment in crowding in private investment.
The Chancellor appreciates the importance of science. As I told the Select Committee the other day, it is hard to think of a Chancellor who has spent more time in lab coats and high-vis clothing than he has. He has revealed his preferences over his chancellorship by ring-fencing science over the last Parliament. We in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are working hard to make the best possible case for science going into the spending review. Obviously, there are difficult decisions and a difficult settlement to be made, but science has a strong set of arguments to make, and we are reinforcing those arguments in our discussions with the Treasury.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Black History Month
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. It is important that the House recognises Black History Month. I do not intend to take up too much time today, because I am conscious that other speakers will have far more to contribute.
Marking the month of October as Black History Month is a long-standing tradition that allows us to consider the vital contributions made to the UK’s culture and economy by ethnic minorities. Although I am not of ethnic minority origin, I represent many people from a range of backgrounds in my constituency. The same can be said for the vast majority of MPs—that is a testament to the success of our multicultural society. This year, 41 black and ethnic minority MPs were elected to Parliament. That is something to celebrate, but it is simply not enough. I believe that any Parliament should be representative of its people. When people see someone of their own race, colour, gender or sexuality in a position of power and influence, it lets them know that their opinions matter and that they, too, can achieve anything.
We must continue to strive for equality for everyone. We have a long way to go before men and women across the country are truly equal. We must continue to recognise Black History Month until we reach a point where everyone in society is equal, regardless of their race, colour, gender or sexuality. It is an opportunity to recognise the best and brightest people across the country who have experienced racism and overcome it. Overcoming racism is an incredible triumph, but they should not have experienced it and it is not something we should tolerate.
Black History Month has grown from its origins in the Harlem renaissance of the 1930s into an international institution. In 1976, the US Government expanded their existing informal tradition into Black History Month. President Gerald Ford set the tone of the event, urging Americans to
“seize the opportunity to honour the too often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavour throughout our history”.
So too is that relevant here. The United Kingdom adopted Black History Month in 1987, which has served to promote positive role models in the black community. Since then, the celebration of Black History Month has come to represent much more than its original purpose.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am sure the hon. Lady recognises that Black History Month as a celebration is largely down to the endeavour of my predecessor as the Member of Parliament for Tottenham, who campaigned for many years for there to be a month in which we recognise black history.
Angela Crawley
Absolutely, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement.
The focus in the UK is on celebrating the contributions of all minority ethnic people in this country. Black History Month in the UK includes the history of African, Caribbean, middle eastern and Asian people. However, the sacrifices, contributions and achievements of those people are often mired in racism, inequality and injustice.
Fourteen years ago, Scotland adopted its own Black History Month. In 2001, Scotland was a changing place. This month is an opportunity to promote the contributions of black and minority ethnic Scots as part of a wide and diverse family, and we are proud to be a diasporic nation. With an increased number of people living in Scotland born abroad, minority ethnic groups represent 4% of Scotland’s population. That compares with a much higher number in England, where minority ethnic people make up 15% of the population. However, the census also showed that minority ethnic groups in Scotland were less likely to live in deprived areas than their counterparts in England.
The Scottish National party Government in Scotland have consistently promoted multiculturalism, believing that diversity is our strength. Scotland aspires to be a place where people from all backgrounds can live and raise their families, and where people from all ethnic backgrounds can achieve their potential. We are making progress, but there is a long way to go. Figures show that 61.7% of black and minority ethnic Scots are employed, compared with the national figure of 70.7%. Black and minority ethnic Scots are still under-represented at senior levels in the boardroom and in politics. In fact, of the 129 MSPs, only two are black or of an ethnic minority. I hope that the election in 2016, and future elections to this House will allow for greater ethnic diversity and minority representation.
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady raises an important issue that has come up in the Labour party, but I wonder if she might say whether the SNP is prepared to accept positive discrimination. The presence of women in this Parliament is largely down to positive discrimination. There has been a lively debate in the Labour party. Are the Scots Nats getting to a place where they believe that, in order to see black and ethnic minority people come forward, it is about positive discrimination, not just hope?
Angela Crawley
I am sure the Scottish National party will be keen to promote all forms of equality across the board. We believe people should achieve their full potential, regardless of their gender, race or sexuality. We are proud to be a party that promotes that. However, we still have a long way to go, and the House has a long way to go before it represents British society.
There is a huge commitment to the minority ethnic population in Scotland. Black and Ethnic Minority Infrastructure in Scotland—BEMIS—was established in 2001, in the same year Scotland began its own Black History Month. The organisation represents and supports the development of the ethnic minority voluntary sector. It aims to empower ethnic minorities and to ensure they are fully recognised and supported as a valued part of Scottish multicultural society. Most importantly, BEMIS does not act simply as an embodiment but aims to reach out to every single sector of our minority population and ensure they are represented. Its core aim is to invest in grassroots parties and to make a difference at a local level.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree that local events such as the one in Oxford this coming Saturday are a very good opportunity for local communities and people of all backgrounds to celebrate the enrichment of our culture, economy and daily life by the heritage of minority communities? I also invite her to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy): does the Scottish National party favour positive discrimination?
Angela Crawley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As the spokesperson for equalities, women and children, I absolutely promote positive discrimination where necessary. However, such mechanisms alone do not tackle those problems. The barriers people face in their lives that prevent them from entering a political party or from aspiring to something greater are barriers we need to tackle at a grassroots level, and that will not be achieved by any one particular political party.
In terms of ethnic minority participation in apprenticeships, the figures in England show that, of the 15% target population, only 9% do apprenticeships. Training is an effective way out of poverty—a fact taken seriously by the Government, and one of the few policy areas on which I agree with the Prime Minister, who plans to introduce 3 million new apprenticeships by 2020. That is a huge target, and giving a helping hand to our young workforce is very welcome, but without a concentrated effort, I fear ethnic minority statistics will remain static and those who would benefit most from training will not be able to access apprenticeships.
Black History Month celebrates the very best of black and minority ethnic culture in this country, yet for many different sections of society, there is vast inequality. Twenty-eight years after the establishment of Black History Month in the UK, life is still more difficult for the black and ethnic minority community. Black History Month should allow us, as legislators, to consider the effects of our policies on ethnic minority communities and to remember the histories of the black and minority ethnic people in our constituencies and across the whole of society who we have been sent here to represent. We have a huge role to play in considering the policies that will shape Britain’s future, and this month we celebrate the diversity and richness of this multicultural society. I look forward to joining other Members of the House in celebrating this opportunity.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing the debate. I applied for a debate on Black History Month and failed. I am very pleased that she was successful and that we are having this debate; otherwise we would not be marking Black History Month in Parliament this year, which would be a disgrace.
I am proud to stand here as a Member of Parliament of African heritage. My late father came to this country from Nigeria in the 1960s. I am proud to represent a constituency and a borough with one of the largest African and Caribbean populations in the country. I am one of three MPs who represent the Brixton area, which is often referred to as Britain’s black capital and is home of the Black Cultural Archives, of which I am a patron.
People often ask why so many people from Africa and the Caribbean settled in Brixton. Of course, the first wave of black immigrants arrived here from Jamaica in the late 1940s on the Empire Windrush, which arrived at Tilbury docks in Essex. Many new arrivals were first settled in the deep bomb shelters in Clapham South in Lambeth. The labour exchange, which we now call the jobcentre, was located on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton, which is why so many black people have settled in our area since. That point illustrates that the suggestion that we often read in the tabloid media and that emanates from certain political parties—the narrative that suggests that immigrants just want to come here to take advantage of our benefits system—is a complete myth. It is because black people were looking for work that they settled near that labour exchange in Brixton.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important to use the appropriate language to reflect the reality of the very positive contributions made by so many people who have come to our country. East Renfrewshire is one of the most diverse constituencies in Scotland. I am delighted to represent a constituency with such a rich heritage in so many ways. It is undeniable that that brings a huge amount to our society and our communities.
Mr Umunna
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Black History Month is important because it gives us the opportunity to celebrate not only the contribution of the Windrush generation, but further waves of immigration from west Africa, such as those of the ’60s and ’70s—when, as I have said, my father came here—and, more recently, those from Somalia and Eritrea. There are new burgeoning communities from those parts of the world in Lambeth.
The immense contribution of black people to this country’s society is unarguable. I think of people such as Kanya King, the founder of the MOBO—Music of Black Origin—awards. She was the youngest of nine children, left school when she was 16, became a single mum and ended up establishing one of the world’s leading music awards events, which is watched by more than 400 million people every year. I think of Mo Ibrahim, who came here from Sudan in 1974, started working as a BT engineer and ended up building the biggest telecommunications company that Africa has seen. I think of stars of screen and stage not just in the UK, but in Hollywood, such as my constituents, Doña Kroll, Ellen Thomas and, of course, David Harewood from the programme “Homeland”. I think of Dame Linda Dobbs, our first High Court judge of black origin. I think of all the black people in the country who are not famous and make an immense contribution to the life of the United Kingdom. Black History Month is very important, particularly so that the younger generations, who did not experience the struggle of people such as Bernie Grant to be given the same opportunities as everyone else in the country, remember their heritage and the struggles that went before.
As the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said, despite of all the progress, a glass ceiling undoubtedly still exists for black people in our country. I am not going to talk about all the inequalities in the criminal justice system and the fact that someone is more likely to be arrested, to be stopped and searched and, as we learned recently, to be tasered if they are of an African or Caribbean background. I just want to look at a few areas where I think the glass ceiling is particularly prominent and then point to some solutions. I used to be the shadow Secretary of State with responsibility for higher education. It is a disgrace that, out of 17,900 professors, just 85—less than 1%—are black, when we make up 4.6% of the population. That is shocking, particularly given that education is supposed to unlock the door of opportunity.
Look at our media, which does so much to shape perceptions of black people. There are hardly any non-white faces around the boardroom tables of our major broadcasters or publishing groups. There is just one ethnic minority editor of a national newspaper—Amol Rajan of The Independent. There are no others. Our corporate boards generally have an extreme lack of diversity when it comes to ethnicity. Yes, we have seen progress with the gender make-up of boards, but there is an extreme lack of ethnicity.
I look—dare I say it?—at our own labour movement. The trade union movement, of course, led the charge for the equalities legislation of the 1960s and 1970s, but there are no prominent general secretaries of colour. We have to address that. Of course, we cannot pass up the opportunity to mention the situation in the House, as the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said. It is fantastic that we now have 41 black and minority ethnic MPs in the House of Commons, which is up from 27, but we have just 12 black MPs when there should be 30.
We think of football as one field that acts as a trailblazer for representation. Around 30% of players in the Football League are from a BME background—mostly black—but there are hardly any people of colour in the boardrooms. Of the 92 managers in the premier league and the Football League divisions, just six are managers of colour. That is utterly appalling.
The question is what to do about that situation. Some say—and we always hear this argument when we are talking about equalities issues—that, “You have to appoint on merit. These issues shouldn’t impact on decisions made. We shouldn’t worry about these things.” If people are going to use that as an excuse, the logic follows that they are basically saying that the reason that we do not have sufficient representation in all those different fields is that there are not sufficient numbers of black people who merit appointment. That argument does not hold in 2015.
Our higher education institutions benefit from public funding. In the corporate sector, increasingly large corporates and business organisations are thinking, very carefully, who they procure to provide goods and services to their businesses and what their workforces look like. Organisations in the City are increasingly doing that. Almost all higher education institutions benefit from some form of public funding. Are the Government holding their feet to the fire on the lack of diversity, for example, among professorships?
Regarding our media and business organisations and their boards more generally, I congratulate the Government on the progress they have made on increasing the gender diversity on corporate boards, but now we need to see the same political will and determination used to improve the ethnic diversity of boards. Lord Davies, the Labour Lord who was commissioned to carry out the report on gender diversity on boards, will produce his final report on 29 October. What are the Government looking to do in respect of ethnic diversity? In addition, I would like to see some of our major trade unions implementing the kinds of positive action measures that we have implemented in the Labour party to ensure that people of colour are coming forward for elected office.
More generally, I welcome the fact that, to some extent, there is an arms race among our political parties to become the most diverse in the UK. That is a good thing, but we need to look further at implementing positive action measures to ensure that we get better representation in this place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has been leading the charge and arguing for change for more than a decade.
Returning to football, there has been a lively debate on whether the Rooney rule should be introduced here. I am not talking about Wayne, but Dan Rooney, an American football club owner who led the way to the creation of a rule in the US that stipulates that at least one non-white candidate must be interviewed when a manager’s job comes up. That has led to huge progress in the States.
In June, Greg Clarke, the chairman of the Football League, which does not include the premier league, tabled changes at the league’s annual general meeting, which comprises all the owners and people who head up the clubs, following an inquiry into the lack of representation among Football League managers. He proposed making it compulsory for clubs to interview at least one BAME candidate, where an application has been received, for all youth development roles requiring a minimum of a UEFA B coaching licence. The application of the rule to first team roles is to be piloted by five to 10 clubs. If that pilot works, the rule for youth development roles will be applied to first team manager roles 12 months later.
I congratulate the Football League—Greg Clarke deserves huge praise for his leadership—but what is the Premier League doing? It is the most high-profile football league in the country. I understand that, in order for the Premier League to make progress, it will need a pipeline coming from the Football League, but it is not enough for the Premier League to say, “We’re going to sit around and wait for the Football League to make progress before we apply ourselves to increasing diversity in the most famous and exciting league in the world.” If that measure produces fruit in the Football League, the Premier League should set the goal of introducing in or by 2020 the same Rooney-style rules that the Football League has said it will implement. That will represent real progress in football.
We should celebrate, but we should not be complacent as progress still needs to be made. I very much hope that, when Black History Month comes about next year, we will have this debate in the main Chamber of the House of Commons, which is where it should be taking place, given the huge contribution of African and Caribbean people to our country.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing this debate. Celebrating and raising awareness of black history through Black History Month has been shown to be urgently necessary in the light of the Prime Minister’s recent comments on slavery and reparations. I want to use my speech today to address this issue.
At the end of September, on the first visit to Jamaica by a UK Prime Minister in 14 years, the Prime Minister told the people of Jamaica in his speech to “move on from this painful legacy” of slavery. Such language is disgustingly insensitive and inexcusable. Britain has absolutely no authority to dismiss outright Jamaicans’ reactions to their history. The Prime Minister had the audacity to state of slavery:
“Britain is proud to have…led the way in its abolition”,
propagating a dangerous simplification of history, which is wrong. He inaccurately glorified Britain’s role in abolishing slavery, yet refused to address explicitly Britain’s leading role in the atrocity itself.
The Prime Minister stressed the relationship between Britain and Jamaica as friends since independence, but he failed to address the fact that the fundamental relationship between the two countries has been one of exploitation, which is what Jamaican Ministers were calling on him to address. Using the aid budget to provide locks and chains and presenting that as an act of generosity is insulting. Expressing sorrow over the slave trade, as Tony Blair did in 2006, is not enough. I call on the Government to apologise publicly and formally for the British slave trade. Britain should be accepting accountability, engaging in the reparations debate and providing infrastructure for growth, not for the incarceration of those formerly held in Britain.
The language and narrative of the Prime Minister’s speech and his outright rejection of reparations show a total lack of respect for and understanding of black history. It is totally at odds with the way that the tragedy of the holocaust has been dealt with—a tragedy that is ingrained in European social memory and embedded in the school curriculum. I do not believe for one second that the Prime Minister would have used the same language in a speech to the Jewish community. It is not my intention to rank oppressions; I simply wish to use a comparison to emphasise how unacceptable it is to tell formerly enslaved countries and colonies to move on from a legacy of horrific, state-sponsored, organised violence and exploitation.
We pride ourselves on being a multicultural country, which I am proud to be part of, yet black history remains on the periphery of British historical memory. That needs to change. Black history should be part of the school curriculum so that the young people coming up are aware of and proud of their history. Black people are still less represented in Parliament and positions of power. Black lives matter, not only here but internationally. Our lives are less valued than white lives. That needs to change. Structural inequalities and everyday racism remain as a result of the legacy of slavery. That must be addressed. Openly acknowledging the existence of lasting inequalities and accepting the historical role of the Government in propagating them is the first stage that will help to change the relationship and the power dynamics.
I thank Members for their attendance, but have to second the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna): this debate should be taking place in the main Chamber, not on the sides, to give it the respect it warrants.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Buck. You have made a considerable contribution to the lives of black and ethnic minorities in your constituency over many years and to the broader debate within the Labour party, and you continue to do so. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this debate. I thank her for the manner in which she delivered her opening remarks and for all that she is doing north of the border.
I have a short opportunity to put on the record once again the work of my predecessor, Bernie Grant. Activists and campaigners are perhaps more prominent now than they have been in the past, particularly with the selection of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) as the leader of the Labour party. He knows that campaigning and work often take place at the margins, with very few people paying attention and listening. For many mornings over many years, Bernie Grant campaigned outside the British Museum about the artefacts sitting inside that had been effectively stolen from Africa. He raised the issue consistently, day after day, with no one paying attention. There is now a lively debate on outreach and how to support museums and communities in Africa and the developing world, which is now a very real subject.
My predecessor campaigned for years to introduce these subjects to our national curriculum, and we have made progress. When I was a Culture Minister, I made the decision to introduce the abolition of slavery from the perspective of not only William Wilberforce, but Equiano and others, to the national curriculum, but we need to do more to ensure that our national curriculum tells a rich and complex story about the contribution of both different parts of the British Isles and the Commonwealth.
Many young people do not know that more than 1 million Indian young men died on behalf of this country in the first world war. They do not know that 200,000 young men from the Caribbean died contributing to this country in the same conflict or that, across the Commonwealth, people signed up to come to this country and other parts of Europe and gave up their lives. That is a rich story, and it illustrates why Black History Month is not just a moment when black and brown children in inner-city schools can focus on these issues; it is a national moment when all children in our country, whatever their background, draw inspiration from these stories and reflect on that coming together and those trials and tribulations.
Kirsten Oswald
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiments about the soldiers from across the world who came to serve with forces from the UK; as the Scottish National party spokesperson on the armed forces and veterans, I associate myself with what he says. I also wish our children to be as aware as possible of our diverse communities in Scotland and the UK and of the rich contribution they have all made.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s words. Globally, we reflect on these huge heroes of black history. Of course, I think of Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks, but this is also a moment to think of our homebred heroes such as Paul Stephenson, who organised the boycott of the Bristol buses because of their refusal in 1955 to employ anyone of a black background; that contributed to our getting the Race Relations Act 1965. This year, we celebrate 50 years since that Act was passed, and I hope Parliament will celebrate that occasion appropriately.
All those contributions led to a place in which my father, like the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), arrived in this country as part of the Windrush generation. Those were very different times, and my father would be proud to see me standing here—he is not alive today. That generation made a contribution, and the fight continues. We do not stand still, and huge challenges remain in these tough economic times.
We have heard about the tremendous challenges that exist in our boardrooms. Across the country there is a lack of diversity for black and ethnic minority people at the higher echelons of our companies, which is an issue. Progress was being made in the public sector, particularly in local government and the NHS, but to some extent that progress has stalled. My predecessor, Bernie Grant, was the leader of Haringey Council before becoming the Member of Parliament for Tottenham. We do not see that leadership replicated in the same way these days, although I recall that Muhammed Butt is the leader of Brent Council here in London.
Progress needs to be made in the judiciary and our universities. It is great to see Valerie Amos appointed the director of the School of Oriental and African Studies, adding to the panel of vice chancellors, but there is a considerable amount still to do. As you know, Ms Buck, there remain real issues in mental health and in relation to deaths in police custody. There are also real issues for young people in London, particularly given the unemployment figures.
This is a moment to celebrate, but it is also a moment to redouble our efforts. We must recognise and celebrate 50 years of the Race Relations Act, but we need to ensure that race remains on the agenda and that we do not just talk about diversity and equality but recognise that discrimination exists and that we have to act to address that discrimination. That sometimes means positive discrimination, but it also means that people’s right to challenge in court and elsewhere must be ensured in future.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I was expecting to be the last speaker, so I might be a little all over the place. I had a prepared speech last time I responded to a debate, but now I will try to respond to what other Members have said.
It is a privilege to speak about Black History Month, a month when we in the UK join together in celebrating and valuing the countless inspirational individuals and historic achievements of our black and minority ethnic communities. Since its British incarnation was launched in 1987, Black History Month has addressed a disgraceful blind spot in our national story: the contribution of people from BME backgrounds. There are events highlighting inspiring figures from the BME community who fought injustice and inequality over many years and in different times and places. It is wrong that we should need Black History Month, and the sooner we start honestly portraying our shared history, the less likely it will be that white children will grow up believing that everything happened because of their forefathers and foremothers, and the greater our chances will be of genuine racial integration. When that happens, when we all just see each other as people and when we accept that in history, as today, we all contributed and we all contribute to the development of this country and to the world, we will not need Black History Month.
In addition to its political side, Black History Month has a vital creative element, with the arts being used to tell some of the stories that we want people to hear. I loved “Record Breakers” as a child, and it horrifies me that there are people here who will not know what I am talking about. [Interruption.] The Minister should not pretend not to remember it. I always wanted to be a record breaker. That is perhaps why, in October 2012, my Jamaican partner and I organised 17 Black History Month events. It was exhausting, but I had a ball because, as well as history lectures and political debates, we had reggae, dancehall and soca nights, African films, Jamaican food and football games.
On football, I wonder how many people know the name of the Scotland footballer who captained the team when they beat England 6-1 in 1881 down the road at the Oval in Kennington. He captained the team on two more occasions, beating Wales 5-1 and, the following year, beating England again, this time only 5-1. I appreciate that it was a long time ago, but allow me to revel in it and to share the final sentence of the match report:
“In the ten matches now played, the Scotch have kicked 34 goals and the English 20.”
The captain of the team was an impressive chap in that he was not only a skilled sportsman but a marine engineer and a successful businessman. Given that this was the 1800s, he surely accomplished more than enough to be held up as a historical role model, yet until recently few people knew the name of Andrew Watson.
Andrew Watson was the Caribbean-born son of a Scottish slave owner. I have not been able to establish whether his mother was a slave or a free woman, but she was a Caribbean woman. The point of that story is that many children came from a slave and slave owner relationship. Many people in Scotland, including people with Scottish surnames, have ancestors who came from the Caribbean.
Mr Lammy
If the hon. Lady will indulge me, I am one of those people of Caribbean descent who took a DNA test a few years ago. I found out that part of my ancestry is indeed Scottish. How proud I was to find out that, like Bob Marley, I have Scottish genes running through me!
Anne McLaughlin
In that case, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman which team he would have supported in that 1881 football game.
I will turn to the slave trade in a little more detail later, but I absolutely concur with one comment from the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who said that an apology is needed from not just the British Government, but the Government in Scotland, for the involvement of all parts of the country in what happened. Like her, I was also outraged when the Prime Minister told Jamaicans to move on.
I was in London during the summer, and I got caught up in a whole load of crowds and traffic. An annual event seemed to be taking place to celebrate—or certainly to mark—the bombing of another country. If we are not going to move on from such things, I do not see why Jamaicans should move on from thinking about this terrible time in their history, which impacts on their country today and will continue to do so until they get the reparations the hon. Lady spoke of.
I want to say a little about the wonderful Mary Seacole. For the life of me, I cannot understand why she is not at least as revered as Florence Nightingale. She was Jamaican born and half-Scottish. She was born Mary Grant, and Grant is one of the names in my family, so I am going to take some of the credit—no, I cannot. She did what women did not do in the 19th century: she travelled, she ran a business and she went to war. When she faced racism—and she did—she did not back down; she continued to risk her life to help others. How did she do that? She went to the Crimean war, and she risked her life helping soldiers—they called her “Mother Seacole”. She applied to be one of Florence Nightingale’s nurses, but was turned down. We know a little more about her now, but it astonishes me that I had not heard of her until four years ago. She is a bit of a hero of mine now, but why did I have to seek her out? I found out about her at a Black History Month event, which is why I think such months are so important.
I want to say a little about someone who is less of an historical figure—he will be pleased to hear me say that if he is listening—and more of a current figure. Professor Sir Geoff Palmer is absolutely passionate about bringing black history to the masses. He is Jamaican born—I appreciate that there are other nationalities, although we seem to be a bit obsessed with Jamaica today. He has lived in Scotland for the past 50 years and has become one of the top professors of brewing science—in other words, he teaches Scottish people how to make the best whisky. He is also the author of a number of books, including one called “Citizens of Britishness”. In it, he talks about the importance of education. He says that if children learned from an early age that the development of our country and our world was down to not just white people, but absolutely everybody, they might not see themselves as different from children in their class who have a different skin colour. I encourage people to read that book.
I want to come back to some of the things that other Members have said. I have not congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing the debate, so I do so now. She said that 41 MPs are from a BME background, and the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) said that 12 are of African or Caribbean heritage. I agree with them both that that is not enough. Both spoke about BME people being under-represented and about there being a glass ceiling. However, there are a number of glass ceilings, which are sometimes pretty low, and it is difficult to break through them. There is lots of evidence to back that up—I am going to give anecdotal evidence, but I would not like anyone to think that there is not actual evidence.
I have a Cameroonian friend, and she is an incredible person. She is extremely articulate and very intelligent. She held down a really senior job in Cameroon, and she speaks about seven languages fluently. One day, she went into two temp agencies. Hon. Members will know the kind I mean—the ones with the posters in the window saying, “400 typists needed” or “25 telephonists needed”. There were posters all over the windows of these agencies, so my friend went in. Both of them said, “No, we don’t have any jobs,” when they clearly did. She said, “Could you put me on a waiting list for when you do?” They said, “No. We don’t have a waiting list. It’s closed.” The glass ceiling is not necessarily all that high, and it is difficult for people to break through.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) spoke of the contribution of people from India, the Caribbean and other places to the British armed forces. People need to know that we white people, on our own, did not go round the world winning all these wars or bringing progress. That is a really important point.
To come back to the Caribbean slave trade, we in Scotland once tended to believe—I will blame this on the lack of education in the whole of Britain at the time—that we did not really have anything to do with the slave trade, that it was the English who were responsible and that we did not have any choice. It turns out that that is not true. It has come to light, however, that Scottish people are happy to face up to their past and want to know the truth about it. Professor Sir Geoff Palmer had a lot to do with bringing the issue to the fore. However, a historian by the name of Stephen Mullen also wrote a book about it. Its title—I do not know how many Members here have been to Glasgow, so I do not know how many will understand this—was “It Wisnae Us”. In other words, the Scottish thought they had nothing to do with slavery, although that is not true.
Two years ago, I was at a talk by Professor Sir Geoff Palmer. He was talking about compensation payments after the slave trade ended—again, this is something I did not know about. I was thinking, “How could you ever compensate somebody for having to live as a slave?”, but I suddenly realised that it was not the slaves who were being compensated, but the slave owners. I was absolutely horrified. Professor Palmer told us that Scotland made up 9% of the population of Britain at the time, but took 16% of the compensation package, which shows how enmeshed in the slave trade Scotland was. Books such as “It Wisnae Us” help us to face up to that.
Much as I love Black History Month, I cannot wait for there to be no need for it. I love history, but I do not want to read about black history. I just want to know our history—to have an honest assessment of our past, not a spin-doctored version where everyone who is not white is airbrushed out of existence. I want an honest history. We are all grown up now. Surely we can face up to the bits of our past that we are not so proud of. Surely we do not have to take the credit for absolutely everything.
As I said at the start, I really look forward to the day when Black History Month does not exist, because that will be the day when we are all equal, and our forebears are celebrated equally, regardless of skin colour, religion or gender. That is not the case right now.
As women, we often feel we are offered fewer role models than men, and nobody seriously argues that that is because women contribute less. It should be alarming to all of us that black children can go through school believing that all our heroes, inventors, revolutionary leaders and significant historical figures were white. What must it do to a child’s self-esteem to see no role models who look like them? How must it feel to be led to believe that even the black struggles and the black victories were really led by white people? I mentioned the example of the abolition of the slave trade. White people may have assisted in that, but it was the black slaves who freed themselves. Black History Month simply shines a light on that and other lies. As I said, I look forward to the day when we do not have to be disabused of the notions I have described because they will have long since left our history books.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Buck, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this important debate.
I want to mention some of the speeches that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) made some important points about the glass ceiling that black and minority ethnic people face. He raised issues about higher education institutions and the lack of diversity among professors, and that is incredibly important. The Government should take action and call on all the universities that take public funding to address the issue as a priority. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Greg Clarke and the Football League on their excellent work to try to increase diversity in the league. They set a great example to encourage premier league clubs to follow suit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) made a lovely speech and raised the important issue of slavery, a shameful chapter in Britain’s history, in which the port of Lancaster in my constituency played a significant role. I try to be very aware of that in the work I do. I hope that future chapters in the book of the history of Britain will make amends for the role that we played in the international slave trade.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has long been a campaigner for race equality, following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Bernie Grant, who was a pioneer at a time when black people did not have it easy. He led the way and was a shining example to everyone. I hope he is an inspiration to many young people today, who can look to figures like him and the hon. Members present in the Chamber to show that no door should be closed to them. I thank my right hon. Friend for reminding us of the role that Commonwealth countries played in the first world war, and of the fact that it is 50 years since the Race Relations Act 1965 was passed. My goodness, we still have a long way to go.
I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) for the lovely compliment she paid me as she looked at me when asking whether anyone would remember “Record Breakers”. I must look younger than I am, because it finished airing in 2001, so I do remember it, and I enjoyed it very much. I am not that young.
It is often said that history is written by the victors. I certainly heard a lot about that when I was growing up, as my father was an enthusiastic lover of history. History is written by dead white men, because they were the people who had power and who wrote it down. Black History Month therefore offers an opportunity to learn more about history that has not been recorded and that is not talked about in the same way that the dead-white-men history is written about. We rightly celebrate many victories and achievements, but, sadly, the legacy of racism and discrimination remain in too many areas of public life today. The stories of many of those who fought for the advances that have been made have not yet been told properly, so Black History Month is as vital for children in schools as it is for Members of Parliament, to enable us to learn about the communities we represent.
I want to play particular attention today to the contribution that black and ethnic minority communities have made to the labour movement. The Labour party and the wider labour movement can be proud when it comes to fighting racism and discrimination.
Ms Karen Buck (in the Chair)
The debate may continue until 4.25 pm if necessary, but I stress that that is not mandatory.
Cat Smith
Labour Members took a leading role in the anti-colonial campaigns in the first half of the 20th century and in the anti-apartheid campaigns more recently. Labour Governments introduced the Race Relations Act 1968, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that all our communities receive equal treatment under law.
There are, however, episodes in our history of which we must be sadly less proud, particularly from the first half of the 20th century, when many black and ethnic minority workers were not welcomed into the labour movement in the way that they should have been. I therefore pay tribute to those who stood up for their rights and successfully changed attitudes and transformed the labour movement into the proudly anti-racist movement that we have today, although there is, as Members have mentioned, some work to do in respect of representation among its leadership.
Those who stood up for their rights include the black workers in Cardiff who formed the Coloured Seamen’s Union in 1936 to fight against the operation of the colour bar in Cardiff docks. The Indian Workers’ Association was also formed around that time in Coventry. It fought not only against racism, but for better employment rights and Indian independence.
In Bristol in the 1960s, black communities boycotted bus services owing to the refusal of the Bristol Omnibus Company to employ black or Asian bus crews. The boycott lasted four months and forced the company to back down and overturn its colour bar. In 1972, Pakistani workers at Crepe Sizes Ltd in Nottingham went on strike over working conditions, redundancies and pay. They were supported by the local community and won union recognition and the reinstatement of workers made redundant.
More well known is the 1976 strike at Grunwick by Asian and West Indian women who walked out owing to poor working conditions and attempts to cut pay. Although the strike was ultimately unsuccessful, it represented one of the first times that a dispute affecting BME workers received the mass support of the trade union movement, with electrical workers, miners, electricians and Post Office workers all backing the strike.
Those episodes represent just a fraction of the contribution that BME workers have made to the labour movement during the 20th century. Those workers not only improved their own lives and those of their communities, but they transformed the labour movement into a more inclusive movement that today has equality at its heart. We owe all of those workers a huge debt of gratitude and we must learn from their example to address the challenges we face. It is shameful that, earlier this month, we learned that black people are three times more likely to have a Taser used against them than white people. It cannot be right that the number of black and Asian workers in low-paid jobs increased by 12.7% between 2011 and 2014 compared with a 1.8% rise for white workers in the same period.
As a society, we need to show solidarity and stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting injustices today. I look forward to hearing the stories of victories over such forms of discrimination in Black History Months to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this important debate on Black History Month. We have had a very good and passionate debate.
Black History Month is an opportunity for us to celebrate the UK’s African, Caribbean and Asian communities and the enormous contribution they have made to our country. It is right that we should use Black History Month to look at the part that black people have played in shaping history. Too often, it is a part that has been ignored or forgotten. We remember the huge number of people from Africa, the Caribbean and Asia who gave their lives fighting for this country in the first and second world wars. Our commemorations of the centenary of the first world war rightly mark the contribution and sacrifice of thousands of men and women from across the Commonwealth.
We remember the bravery of Walter Tull, a black British footballer who played for Tottenham and Northampton. He was a soldier who died in 1918 in France and the first black officer to lead white British soldiers into battle. We also remember Eugent Clarke from Jamaica, who fought at the battle of the Somme, and Khudadad Khan VC, born in what is now Pakistan, who was the first Indian army recipient of the Victoria Cross. And we remember others who fought together, fell together, and together defended the freedoms that we enjoy today.
We remember that, after the second world war, people from across the Commonwealth helped to rebuild our country. Many people came here with nothing, but they and their descendants have built successful and prosperous lives here in Britain. Today, we can claim to be a successful multi-ethnic and multi-faith country. In recent years, members of African, Caribbean and Asian communities have made their way to the top in many different areas: in business, in sport, in the arts, in Government, and in the House. I am thinking of people such as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade—I had the pleasure of being his Parliamentary Private Secretary in the previous Parliament. I am thinking of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who has taken part in the debate, and the hon. Members for Streatham (Mr Umunna) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who are also in the Chamber.
Despite the strides that we have made in recent years, we know there is a long way to go, as hon. and right hon. Members have said in the debate. The Government want to create a genuine opportunity country, where ethnic origin and background are not allowed to become a barrier to getting to the top. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minster recently pointed out, opportunity does not mean much if someone is facing discrimination or inequality—for example, when they do not get called for an interview because they have an ethnic-sounding name on their CV.
This December is the 50th anniversary of the Race Relations Act 1965, the historic legislation that opened the way to all subsequent equalities legislation. We can all be proud of the UK’s world-class equalities legislation, but we know that, on its own, it is not enough. We must all champion equality and recognise and challenge discrimination.
We have set some ambitious goals to improve opportunity for black and minority ethnic people in our 2020 vision. We aim to get a 20% increase in black and minority ethnic people in employment. We want 20% more black and minority ethnic people going to university, 20% more taking up apprenticeships and up to 20% more entering our police forces and armed services. Those are stretching and challenging targets, but we are determined to do all that we can to meet them.
[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]
The employment rate for black and minority ethnic groups is at a record high of 61.4%. Half a million more people from ethnic minorities are in work in Great Britain than in 2010. That is an increase of around 20% in the past five years, but we must go much further. That is why we have made a commitment to increase BME employment by a further 20% by 2020. That challenge is critical to achieving our full employment objective, ensuring that British business makes the most of the talent and potential that exists in all communities in the UK.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister is talking about the targets to have more people from BME backgrounds employed, but the forthcoming Immigration Bill will make that difficult. If an employer is not sure whether someone is British, it will make it more difficult for anyone who might not look British, sound British, or have a British-sounding name to get employment and somewhere to live. Does he agree that that will not help him to reach those targets?
Mr Jones
I note what the hon. Lady says. Further on in my speech, I will come to the measures that the Government are taking to support people to ensure they get into higher education and have the opportunities to get the skills to get the best jobs in the country. I will come to the points that she makes in a moment.
People from all communities want the police to fight crime while having confidence that their individual needs will be understood and respected. That is fair and effective policing. Police forces that reflect the communities they serve are crucial to cutting crime in a modern diverse society. The police have made real improvements in diversity and there are now more women and black and minority ethnic officers than ever before, but we are clear that forces need to do more. Police and crime commissioners and the College of Policing will play a key role in ensuring improvements in forces. New entry routes to policing are proving attractive, and are increasing the diversity of the police workforce.
Many black and Asian performers have excelled in the arts, but we are continuing to keep the spotlight on the main broadcasters and creative industries—the hon. Member for Streatham mentioned that. The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy has been championing black and ethnic minority representation in the media. All the major broadcasters, along with the Arts Council and the British Film Institute, have launched projects to promote diversity in the past 18 months.
Angela Crawley
Does the Minister agree that the media have a responsibility to portray black and minority ethnic members of the community effectively and responsibly? That is all too often not the case.
Mr Jones
I agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment.
Moving on to the questions that hon. Members asked, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East mentioned apprenticeships. As I said earlier, the Government have ambitious plans to increase the number of apprenticeships available to black and minority ethnic people by 20% by the end of this Parliament. I can tell the hon. Member for Streatham that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has a high-level action plan for how to increase the number of apprentices from BAME backgrounds. I am sure that the Department will work hard during this Parliament to fulfil the Prime Minister’s obligation. The hon. Gentleman also quite rightly mentioned stop and search, and the Home Secretary has been absolutely clear that no one should be stopped on the basis of their race or ethnicity alone. The Government have therefore revised the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 regulations to prevent unnecessary stop-and-search procedures.
The hon. Gentleman also rightly discussed football coaching and management, an area where black and ethnic minority people have been under-represented, unlike among the players themselves. He mentioned Greg Clarke, not my esteemed right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, but the chairman of the Football League. I welcome its work on this important issue and hope that that will spur the Football Association on to greater work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in December 2014 plans to invest £2 million a year for the next five years in football coaching and grassroots development. To be fair to the FA, it is matching that funding and setting up bursary schemes to fund qualifications with specific targets for female coaches and coaches from the black and ethnic minority community. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that.
Mr Umunna
I agree with the Minister about what the Football League is doing, but the league that everyone knows and talks about the most, the premier league, is where we ultimately have to ensure that we see action. Chris Hughton, as the manager of Newcastle United, was I think the last black manager in the premier league, but since then there has been none.
Mr Jones
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The premier league is the biggest and most recognisable league in the world. I accept what he said about the Football League and the lead that it has taken. I am sure that the FA will be listening to what has been said in this debate about what the Football League has done and I hope that it will look intently at the lead that it has taken.
Several Members, including the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), the Opposition spokeswoman, mentioned higher education. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been successful in supporting participation in higher education by young people from ethnic minorities, with entry rates for English 18-year-old state pupils rising in every ethnic minority group. That said, far more still needs to be done, but we aim to continue that improvement as part of our 2020 vision. Universities plan to spend over £745 million on measures to improve access and success for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and we sincerely hope that many young people from ethnic minority groups will gain entry to university as a result.
In response to the contribution from the hon. Member for Edmonton, I reassure her that the Government absolutely deplore the human suffering caused by slavery. There can be no doubt that the chapters relating to the slave trade are among the most dishonourable and abhorrent in the history of humanity. We regret and condemn the historical slave trade and slavery. They were shameful events that rightly belong in the past. I completely understand the hon. Lady’s points. We can certainly agree that the horror of the slave trade should never be forgotten. She will probably know that the Prime Minister learned from the past before looking to the future when we introduced the Modern Slavery Bill in the previous Parliament, in particular to try to prevent people trafficking today. The Prime Minister cares deeply about the subject and has transformed my party’s representation on our Benches in terms of not only gender but ethnicity. We should celebrate that and his 2020 pledges.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham commented on council leadership. It is quite rightly down to political parties to do more to ensure that more local authority leaders are from black and minority ethnic communities.
In her contribution, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), the SNP spokeswoman, alluded to the fact that I am old enough to remember “Record Breakers”. I certainly am, but I am old enough to remember the Roy Castle and Norris McWhirter version—
Mr Jones
I am sure the hon. Lady knows exactly who they were! They were great people who are unfortunately no longer with us. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned the 2001 version of “Record Breakers”, and Kriss Akabusi and Linford Christie, the Great British black Olympians, were actually presenters during its last few series. I remember watching it many years ago, and I think I remember seeing several episodes in which they made a fantastic contribution.
Moving back to football, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned Andrew Watson, whose story contains valuable lessons. I am glad to say that I am not old enough to remember when Scotland used to beat England by five or six goals to one on a regular basis. As a proud England supporter, I hope that that does not happen during my lifetime. The hon. Lady was also among several Members who referred to Mary Seacole, and I join them in paying tribute to her. My Department now shares lodgings with the Home Office and the three wings of the building are named after three great figures from British history: Robert Peel, the former Home Secretary; Elizabeth Fry, the great prison reformer; and Mary Seacole. So my colleagues and I are reminded of Mary Seacole every day when we go into the Department for Communities and Local Government.
I again thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East for securing this important debate on Black History Month. I am delighted that it has given Members an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of Britain’s black communities. I take on board the comment that it would be good to have this debate in the main Chamber. That is obviously a job for Mr Speaker and his office, or for the Government at the time, but I would certainly welcome the opportunity to respond to a debate on the Floor of the House, if that were to happen.
We should celebrate the contribution of Britain’s black communities and remember the part that they have played in building what is becoming a successful multi-ethnic society. I pay tribute to the contribution and sacrifice of so many African, Caribbean and Indian people in the two world wars. As a Government, we reiterate our commitment to bringing an end to discrimination and to building a society in which there is real opportunity for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Black History Month.
Accessible Toilet Availability
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered accessible toilet availability for disabled adults and children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to have the opportunity to discuss the thorny issue of accessible toilets for disabled or incontinent adults and older children in general, as well as the Changing Places campaign in particular. I will take this opportunity to explain a little about what that campaign is all about and reflect on why it is needed, as well as on the tremendous, world-leading success we have already in Britain. I will discuss how it fits into a broader strategy on accessible tourism and its untapped economic potential, and then make a specific request for the Government to consider.
I was grateful to learn that today’s debate would be a good while after people had eaten their lunch. This is not the most edifying of subjects, but perhaps it is appropriate that we should all feel a little uncomfortable while considering the daily indignities that incontinent adults and children, and their parents and carers, are forced to suffer.
I pay particular tribute to Jane Carver and Gillian Scotford, campaigners from my constituency who are doing tremendous work to raise the profile of accessible tourism and of Changing Places toilets. I will discuss that in more detail later. I also acknowledge the work of Mencap in campaigning for an increase in the number of Changing Places toilets, and the work of the British Toilet Association and the wider Changing Places consortium, which includes the Centre for the Accessible Environment and PAMIS—the Profound and Multiple Impairment Service.
This agenda is important not just because of human dignity but because of the huge strain that is put on the families of disabled older children and young adults. We should all be aware of the many challenges they face. Parents of disabled children are more likely to separate or divorce than the average. They live in an era when the support that was once there for families through embattled social services departments has shrunk, and respite care is scarce. On top of all those challenges, the parents of disabled or incontinent children face the additional weekly strain on the rest of their families of having a child who demands more attention than other children, with all the pressure that will bring.
Families with incontinent children have to organise all family outings around being able to have access to a toilet every two hours or so. It is impossible to overestimate the extent to which consideration of access to toilets is a dominant factor for someone with an incontinent child or adult in their family unit. Before every outing, those families have to consider how long they will be able to go until they need to change their loved one, and what the facilities will be like when they are out. Barely a single family affected will have avoided the experience of changing an adult or large child on a dirty toilet floor. Having to lie on a toilet floor as an adult or large child, being changed like a baby, is unimaginable for most of us, yet that is what life was routinely like for those families before Changing Places toilets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a delicate but important issue. Although we are in a time of financial restraint—we are all aware of that, across the whole of the United Kingdom—does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that people with physical disabilities are not disadvantaged, however that may be, by financial restraints, and that the Government must be committed to delivering services for them across the whole country? It is important that we do not let those services disappear into the ether of financial restraints.
Toby Perkins
I agree entirely—that is precisely why I wanted to have the debate. We can and will have broader discussions in the House and in the other place about the extent to which the Government fulfil the test the hon. Gentleman has set. In that regard, delivering those services is vital. I intend to make the case today that not only do we have a moral obligation to get this right, but there are arguments that doing so is in Britain’s economic interests.
Before there were Changing Places toilets, families were routinely forced to face the circumstances that I described, and, to expand on the point I was just making, child health experts have also spoken about the impact of inadequate toileting provision, with children or adults presenting with infections, skin disorders and mental health problems linked to urinal and faecal incontinence. We should be in no doubt that there is a significant cost to the Government, through increased healthcare costs, in continuing to fail these people and their families.
Changing Places criteria mean that toilet buildings are designed to have more room for equipment for people with multiple disabilities or people who need help to use the toilet. Each Changing Places toilet has a height-adjustable, adult-sized changing bench and a ceiling hoist and has enough space for a disabled person and two carers. Each is a safe and clean environment that includes a large bin and a non-slip floor. Changing Places toilets are utilised by and would make a difference to around 250,000 people in the UK. However, if we consider the impact that the lack of those facilities has on their family members, around 1 million people are affected.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important short debate, which focuses on this key issue. I join him in congratulating those campaigners, such as Lorna Fillingham in my constituency, for the work that they have done to support the Changing Places campaign, which is so important.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to give credit to those organisations and individuals, many of whom have fought very bravely for that. The Changing Places consortium, which I mentioned, involving PAMIS and a number of organisations coming together to work collectively, has made a really powerful case, which is why we have we have seen the progress that we have.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing this intervention, and I congratulate him on securing this debate, but I would like to take this opportunity to share some sad news. Loretto Lambe, the founder of PAMIS, sadly passed away at the weekend, following a long illness. The disabled community will know of Loretto’s passionate and tireless campaigning for disability rights. Although Loretto officially retired last summer, it is to her great credit that she continued her work right up to the end of her life. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to Loretto’s work and in passing on our condolences to Loretto’s husband, James, and her family.
Toby Perkins
I am very glad that the hon. Lady was able to pay that tribute. She is absolutely right to say that the contribution that Loretto made is gratefully reflected on by people right across the country, and we all mourn her passing.
Let me remind the House of the number of people affected: there are 250,000 such people in the UK, and if we take into account their family members, too, that number rises to 1 million people. There also around 900,000 children—most of whom would not be included in the original figures—who are diagnosed as having continence problems, many of whom would not be considered disabled, but none the less require appropriate space for changing. What those numbers tell us, apart from simply the scale of the problem and the health-related cost implications, is the huge potential tourism market available to venues that are accessible to disabled people—not to mention the moral obligation that we have as a civilised society to disabled people and their families. The case for having Changing Places toilet provision as widely available as possible is utterly compelling.
Before I go on to talk about what more can be done to further the case for Changing Places toilet provision, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the successes that campaigners have already achieved in Britain.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I briefly mention that even ordinary toilets are under threat within local government areas. With an ageing population and more people with stomas and other problems of urinary or faecal support, I think the numbers that would be affected by high-quality toilets are even greater.
Toby Perkins
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point. The impact of local authority budget cuts on this and a huge number of other areas is something we return to time and again within the political arena. I thank her for making that point.
As I was saying, it is worth reflecting for a moment on the successes. Britain leads the world in provision of this sort; in no other country is the scale of provision of this kind of facility as advanced as it is here. The Prime Minister spoke today of the pride that we should feel in what we do for disabled people in this country. Although in some areas, that is questionable, huge strides have been made in our country, with legislative victories such as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and subsequently the Equality Act 2010. The progress on Changing Places means that we can justifiably argue that Britain is the leading disability-friendly holiday destination in the world.
We now have 770 Changing Places toilets in Britain, including 18 in Derbyshire. I would like to take a moment to highlight the work of Accessible Derbyshire, a ground-breaking charity with a mission to make Derbyshire the most disability-friendly county in Britain. It works with local tourist hotspots to advise them on what more they can do to make their offer more accessible and it promotes those organisations on its website, which means that any families with disabled people can learn more about what Derbyshire has to offer.
In Derbyshire, we are of course spoilt for great tourist destinations, from the world-famous Crooked Spire church in Chesterfield—where, among other things, I was married—to Chatsworth house, which is one of the most visited tourist destinations outside London. We have other great country houses like Hardwick hall and Bolsover castle, and, of course, the majesty of the Peak district on our doorsteps. However, even a county not so naturally blessed as we are in Derbyshire must be able to see the huge potential that exists.
The more arithmetically talented Members will have observed that with 770 different Changing Places toilets, there is an average of just over one toilet per parliamentary constituency. I am proud to say that in Chesterfield we have four Changing Places toilets—at the Queen’s Park sports centre, the Chesterfield Royal hospital, the new Chesterfield market hall and the Proact stadium, home to Chesterfield FC. Chesterfield football club may not currently be topping the league one table, but they are one of just six football clubs—alongside Arsenal, Liverpool, Brighton and Hove Albion, Tranmere Rovers and Preston North End—to have Changing Places toilets at their grounds, and Chesterfield’s community hub is an exemplar in catering for disabled football fans. There is positive progress, therefore, but just imagine for a moment that I was standing here saying that there was only one public toilet in a constituency. There would be an outcry, yet practically, for some of our citizens, that is precisely the case.
I come to what can be done. In part M of the Building Regulations 2010, section 5.6 states:
“In large building developments, separate facilities for baby changing and an enlarged unisex toilet incorporating an adult changing table are desirable.”
I would like to see Changing Places toilet provision move to being mandatory in all new large public buildings, rather than desirable as it is today. The cost of a Changing Places toilet is on average around £12,000 to £15,000, and it seems to me incongruous that in an era when we have the Equality Act, which is designed to ensure that disabled people are able to live in a fair and equal society, we can tolerate a situation where 1 million people have their choices so restricted by access to something as basic as toileting.
I would also like the Government, through the Minister’s Department, to make available grant funding to support new and existing building developers to install Changing Places toilets. It would not necessarily need to cover all the cost, but I feel that any support would enable more installations to happen. For example, a grant fund that provided perhaps up to half the cost of Changing Places provision, up to a maximum of a £10,000 grant, would make a real difference to the number of Changing Places toilets available. I also commend the work that the Government are doing with the Changing Places consortium on a new website, which I believe will be launched on World Toilet Day—who knew?—on 19 November. It will provide a detailed map highlighting all the Changing Places toilets currently available.
May I ask the Minister to confirm whether there are any plans to consider amending the building regulations to make Changing Places toilets mandatory in large public buildings? Will he investigate setting up a fund to support part of the cost of Changing Places toilets for developers and local authorities who include them in their design? Will he also advise what current sources of funding might be available to organisations that are considering making Changing Places toilets available in their premises?
Will the Minister say more about what the Government are doing to promote the importance of Changing Places toilets and make awareness of them more easy to access for families planning their trips? Finally, will he say a bit more about the steps that his Department are taking to market Britain as an accessible tourist destination? What opportunities does he envisage could be created to promote more effectively the steps that Britain takes to make our tourist destinations accessible to disabled visitors?
In closing, I should say that, to me, this is one of the really important civil rights issues of our time. It may be an unfashionable cause, but it is about justice and equality of access—a principle that I hope all of us would recognise. If there were five Changing Places toilets in every constituency, there would be reasonable access to appropriate toilet facilities for these families wherever they were. That should be our target in the coming years, and the measures I have outlined would help us to achieve that. One day, the misery that this issue has brought to families of disabled adults and children will be at an end. Why not let that time be now?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this afternoon, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for bringing forward this important issue for debate. It is a matter that Members of both Houses have taken a keen interest in over the years. I will endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
It is important to recognise that there is no dispute about the importance of accessible toilets for disabled people. Most of us take the availability of toilets for granted. Part M of the Building Regulations 2010 sets out a minimum standard for accessible toilets in most public buildings, which helps to ensure that a wide range of needs is met. However, for adults and children whose needs are not met by the standard toilet provision, and for their families and carers, we recognise that the availability of facilities such as Changing Places toilets is central to planning any activity that takes place outside the home.
We can all agree that having more Changing Places facilities is a good thing, which is why my Department has worked with partners including the Changing Places campaign, PAMIS, Mencap and the British Toilet Association to improve the provision of Changing Places toilets, and we intend to continue. I pay tribute to Loretto Lambe of PAMIS. I send my condolences, on behalf of the Government, to her family and friends at this difficult time.
There has been a lot of success. The number of Changing Places toilets in the UK has increased from about 140 to more than 750—I think it is now 770—since my Department became involved in 2007, and more facilities are planned in new locations.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that proper access to toilets for disabled people is not just a moral imperative, for the reasons we have heard? It also makes sense because it encourages more people to come into town centres, such as Cheltenham. That, in turn, is good for business.
Mr Jones
I agree. Cheltenham is a fantastic place; if disabled adults and people with disabled children are able to visit places across the country such as Cheltenham and Chesterfield, we will have a better society and more prosperous town centres.
Our success has been driven by local campaigners, with the broader support and backing of national organisations. Campaigners, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Chesterfield, who made this debate possible, deserve great credit for their dedication and success in ensuring that the number of Changing Places toilets continues to rise. I would like to take the opportunity to recognise the great work that those campaigners have undertaken in their local communities.
Alongside the work of campaigning groups, the Government have been active in considering what we can do to help. Before I come to the issue of Changing Places toilets and building regulations, I will explain what has already been done to support and increase the number of Changing Places toilets. For some years, the Department has hosted the Changing Places Charter Group, which brings together campaigning and business interests. It meets periodically to discuss how voluntary provision of Changing Places facilities can be improved, and it has had some notable successes. It has helped to identify problems that need to be resolved to improve provision, and it has worked to address those issues over time.
The group found that, although building more Changing Places facilities is important, it is only one aspect to be considered in ensuring that Changing Places toilets genuinely improve choice for disabled people and their carers. Changing Places toilets need to be located in the right place, and they need to be easy to find and access. This is a strategic planning issue that requires careful consideration to make the facilities effective. Building a Changing Places toilet in the wrong location is a missed opportunity. Changing Places toilets need to be well maintained, and building owners must ensure they remain open for use. There is no point in forcing a developer to build a Changing Places toilet if it is then locked or used for another purpose. The key is to ensure that building owners are willing hosts who recognise and embrace the importance of Changing Places toilets, and proactively support and promote their use.
Carol Monaghan
The Minister is talking about building Changing Places toilets in the correct locations, but one of the issues for my constituents and many disabled people who make long journeys by road is the lack of Changing Places toilets at motorway service stations. Does the Minister agree that those are sadly deficient at the moment?
Mr Jones
Over the years, motorway service stations have become an extremely important part of people’s ability to travel—particularly people who need to use facilities when they are travelling. I agree that we should do whatever we can to encourage the development of Changing Places toilets that are suitable for the people we have been talking about when service stations are built.
In addition to ensuring that Changing Places toilets are built, it is important that disabled people and carers know where their nearest Changing Places toilet is, when it is open, how to access it and what equipment is installed at each location. I am pleased to say that earlier this year, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield said, my Department gave a grant to Mencap, which, working with the Changing Places campaign and the British Toilet Association, has developed a web application that will transform the way in which people are able to find and use Changing Places toilets. That work was funded by the devolved Administrations, and it should be launched shortly.
The website will enable disabled people and their carers to find the nearest Changing Places toilet anywhere in the United Kingdom at the touch of a button. They will be able to navigate to the location using GPS, which has been precisely located; see photos of the outside and entrance, which will make the toilet easy to find; and find opening times and access arrangements. They will also be able to see photos from the inside and obtain all of the necessary details to be confident that the facility will be suited to their individual needs. It is important that people and their carers are not embarrassed when they go to a Changing Places toilet, as the toilets need to satisfy the needs of the people who use them.
The website will also provide a journey planner that will enable people instantly to find the location of every Changing Places facility along their proposed route. In addition, having an accurate map of every Changing Places toilet in the UK will enable Mencap and its partner organisations to identify geographical gaps in provision. Those areas can then be targeted to identify how Changing Places toilets can be provided. We believe that that will have a transformational effect on the lives of disabled people who rely on Changing Places toilets, and their carers. It will help to maximise the benefit of each Changing Places facility that is built.
As I said, it is important that more Changing Places toilets are built and successfully operated over time. The key issue, which brings me to the hon. Gentleman’s question, is how that can be best brought about. The guidance in “Approved Document M”, on accessibility and facilities in buildings, which supports the requirement in part M of the Building Regulations 2010, was amended in 2013 to include a reference to Changing Places toilets; it provides links to information on their installation and use developed by the Changing Places campaign. That important endorsement not only signalled the importance of such facilities but gave building owners and operators confidence that Changing Places toilets can be successfully integrated into their properties. However, that change in guidance does not mean that building regulations require that Changing Places toilets be provided. Instead, it indicates that they are desirable in large buildings and complexes.
There are a number of important factors to take into account when considering the use of building regulations in this context. I note that building regulations are a devolved matter and therefore I can speak only for England in this respect. It would be up to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to consider the issue with respect to their own building standards.
Building regulations apply only where building work is taking place. That means that building regulations are not necessarily best suited to ensuring that provision is made in the most important locations. The building regulations are not retrospective. That means that any requirement for Changing Places toilets would apply only in new buildings or to works involving major refurbishment. That means that the number of facilities likely to be provided would be low by comparison with the existing building stock overall.
The building regulations do not apply to all types of buildings. Railway stations, airports and ports are among the most relevant exceptions. More importantly, building regulations do not ensure that Changing Places toilets are retained in use or made available to the public once built. On that basis, it has been the Government’s preferred approach to see voluntary provision coming forward, rather than introducing specific regulatory requirements. A partnering approach helps to ensure that Changing Places toilets are in the right place, are maintained to the right standard and continue to be available for use once built.
Toby Perkins
I want to press the Minister slightly on this point. We are talking about large public buildings, such as leisure centres and concert venues. We are talking about places that by definition will generally be accessible and in relevant places because the providers of those places want people to be able to get to them. I think that just a bit of a push would make a real difference to the number of these facilities that are built. It is really worth the Government’s considering that.
Mr Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that point. That brings me nicely on to saying that we will certainly keep an open mind about whether there is a role for building regulations. I am pleased to tell him that the Department for Communities and Local Government has already commissioned research into how well part M of the building regulations is working. That includes specific reference to consideration of the need for Changing Places toilets. We will consider the results of that research in deciding whether a review of the current guidance in relation to part M is necessary. As the hon. Gentleman can tell from that, we take this issue extremely seriously.
Let me pick up on a couple of the hon. Gentleman’s other points. I completely agree with him about tourism. I mentioned that town centres would be beneficiaries if we had more Changing Places toilets available. Certainly many tourist attractions could benefit. It is great that his county of Derbyshire has a lot of Changing Places toilets compared with elsewhere in the country. That is good because much of Derbyshire is not that accessible as a result of the terrain. It is quite a hilly place, particularly up in the Derbyshire dales and so on. It is great to see the people of Derbyshire taking this issue so seriously.
On the fund that the hon. Gentleman mentioned with regard to encouraging developers, that perhaps would be an issue for after the spending review, when we will know the position that the Department is in on future spending. However, he can be assured that the Government take Changing Places toilets extremely seriously. I have listened intently to this debate and I can see so many hon. Members here who are concerned about the issue. It is certainly something that we will consider in the review of part M of the building regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Secondary Breast Cancer
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered secondary breast cancer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, in the first Westminster Hall debate that I have secured. As a co-chair of the all-party group on breast cancer, I am delighted to be able to raise the extremely important issue of secondary breast cancer. I thank all the people and organisations that have provided me with valuable information for today’s debate, not least Breast Cancer Care and Breast Cancer Now, both of which provide vital support to the all-party group. I particularly welcome the volunteers from those charities who are in the Public Gallery, representing the approximately 36,000 people living with secondary breast cancer in the UK today.
Last Tuesday was Secondary Breast Cancer Awareness Day. It underlines the importance of the issue that, at an event held in Parliament, nearly 90 MPs from both sides of the House turned up to support. Cancer is a disease that will sadly affect us all in one way or another during our lifetime, but the subject of today’s debate, secondary breast cancer, is often overlooked. Before making progress, I apologise to everyone for the number of acronyms that I will use, but given the number of hon. Members who want to speak, if I used the full names each time, we would never get through everyone.
Secondary breast cancer, also known as metastatic, advanced or stage 4 breast cancer, is where breast cancer cells have spread from the breast to other parts of the body—most commonly to the bones, lungs, liver and brain. It is incurable, but treatable. On average, people live with the disease for two or three years after diagnosis. However, that can vary considerably from person to person, with some living only months after diagnosis and others living many years longer. Unfortunately, research has shown that many secondary breast cancer patients receive inadequate care. All too often, it is much poorer than that which they received following their primary diagnosis. They do not always have access to palliative care, specialist nursing or the treatments that could extend their lives. Much of the current discussion and debate on cancer focuses on promoting early diagnosis and improving survival outcomes. That is extremely important and should be at the forefront of any cancer strategy. However, it is vital that it does not mean that people living with incurable secondary breast cancer are forgotten about. For them, efforts to improve early diagnosis rates will have no effect.
However, there are many things we can do, and for the purposes of today, I would like to focus on five key areas. First, one of the key issues underpinning many of the problems in care is the lack of data about the disease. At present, we have no idea how many people are being diagnosed with secondary breast cancer or how the disease progressively affects life over time. It is surprising that we still do not have an accurate figure for the number of people living with secondary breast cancer. Without that number, it is extremely difficult for the NHS to plan and commission services effectively to meet the needs of patients.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is making a powerful case—a case that has also been made to me by my constituent Jade Braithwaite from Colne, whose mother sadly lost her life to secondary breast cancer. Given that it is already mandatory for hospitals to collect the data on secondary breast cancer, does he agree that it is absolutely shocking how few data we currently have?
Craig Tracey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am coming on to that point now—well anticipated! As I said, it is surprising that we do not have accurate figures and it is therefore difficult to plan and commission effectively. That is acutely demonstrated in the lack of specialist nurses and poor access to palliative care, which both Breast Cancer Care and the secondary breast cancer taskforce first raised in 2008.
In 2010, Breast Cancer Care, along with other breast cancer charities and the APPG, met the Prime Minister to discuss the issue. He agreed that data collection was necessary and committed to achieving that. As a result, in the 2011 cancer strategy, “Improving Outcomes”, there was a commitment to collecting data for the first time. It stated:
“During 2011/12 we will pilot the collection of data on recurrence/metastasis on patients with breast cancer with the aim of undertaking full collection from April 2012.”
The pilot was run by the National Cancer Intelligence Network, the NCIN, in collaboration with Breast Cancer Care, and it involved 15 breast cancer units across England. The pilot report published in March 2012 identified 598 patients with recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Of those, only 53% were recorded as having been referred to a clinical nurse specialist, palliative care nurse or specialist keyworker at the time of diagnosis. The pilot recommended that all breast cancer units in England submit data on patients with recurrent and metastatic breast cancer using the existing data collection mechanisms, and in January 2013 that was made mandatory in all new diagnoses recorded in England. Unfortunately, the data have yet to be published, and I understand that hospitals are not collecting them consistently. Indeed, a report was due to be published by the NCIN on the topic earlier this year but, disappointingly, it has been repeatedly delayed.
An investigation with health professionals by Breast Cancer Care into why data are not being collected consistently revealed that many of the barriers lie in the practicalities. Time constraints mean that there is often not enough time to input data manually, because patients’ needs, rightly, come first. Structural constraints were cited. Many of the data are expected to be collected through discussion at the multidisciplinary team meeting, but healthcare professionals tell us that most secondary patients are not discussed at MDT level. I welcome the recommendation in the new cancer strategy to review the role and function of the MDT in relation to secondary cancers. IT constraints cause further problems, because online record forms are not set up to collect the data in the cancer outcomes and services dataset, and there is a lack of access to online systems in some hospitals, especially in tertiary centres outside main hospital sites. Finally, there is a lack of awareness about what data are required and confusion about who is responsible for inputting various data items.
Leadership is required to help to drive robust data collection in all hospitals, and we want the Minister, who has responsibility for public health, to make that a priority and lead the way in ensuring that data are collected in every hospital. The new cancer strategy, “Achieving world-class cancer outcomes”, which was published earlier this year, includes a recommendation that data should be collected on all secondary cancer patients. We urgently need the implementation of the plan for how that will happen. In theory, as I have said, breast cancer data should be submitted through the COSD, which replaced the previous national cancer dataset in January 2013 as the new national standard for reporting cancer data in the NHS in England. It has the potential to provide a much broader overview of the treatment, care and outcomes of secondary breast cancer patients. Unless that happens consistently across England, however, we will not see the data that we need to improve care.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the powerful case that he is forensically making. He knows as well as I do that, in our area of the west midlands, we were hit by the Ian Paterson scandal at Spire Parkway hospital. Does he believe that a greater ability to collect and collate statistics would have gone some way to alleviating that problem, because it could have been spotted earlier?
Craig Tracey
I agree completely. The lack of data is astounding, and they would help in so many different areas of treatment.
My second objective is access to specialist palliative care. For those living with a diagnosis of secondary breast cancer, such care can make all the difference in enhancing their quality of life, but for too many, support is not available. In many cases when support becomes available, it is too little, too late. Research for Secondary Breast Cancer Awareness Day in 2014 showed that 90% of people living with secondary breast cancer experience regular pain, and 78% find that it affects their ability to undertake everyday activities. For those reasons, palliative care is an absolute essential for secondary breast cancer. Hospices and community-based services can provide symptom management and pain control so that no one has to live with secondary pain. Furthermore, emotional support for both patient and family can help people come to terms with having an incurable disease, as well as ensuring that decisions are taken and adhered to about their choices at the end of life. Palliative care should come at the point of diagnosis, or at a timely point such as when a patient becomes symptomatic. It should provide both symptom control to help them live as well as they can for as long as possible, and emotional support to help them to cope with having an incurable disease and to make informed choices about the end of life.
The third area that I would like to mention is specialist nursing care. We know from the cancer patient experience survey that having a clinical nurse specialist as part of someone’s care is the biggest driver in improving patient experience. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence quality standard states that everyone with secondary breast cancer should have access to a CNS. A CNS can help to co-ordinate care, provide emotional support and guide a patient through treatment and beyond. However, we know that it is far less common for someone with secondary breast cancer to have a CNS than for someone who has primary breast cancer, mainly because only a handful of CNSs have specific experience of and expertise in secondary breast cancer. A 2010 study found that there were only 19 dedicated secondary breast cancer nurse post-holders across the UK—the current estimate is 25—as opposed to 600 conventional breast cancer care nurse posts. That number must be increased, given that we estimate that there are 36,000 people living with secondary breast cancer—that figure is likely to grow as the population ages and treatments improve.
We need to commit to training more secondary breast cancer CNSs. Anecdotal evidence from existing nurses and from patients who receive care from a CNS suggest that that measure could save money in the long term by keeping patients out of hospital and highlighting problems before they become crises in A&E. We would also expect someone who has a CNS to be more likely than someone who does not to be referred to palliative care when they need it.
My fourth point is about access to drugs and treatments. The cancer drugs fund, which was introduced in 2011, has been an important initiative to improve access to clinically effective drugs that have been deemed by NICE not to be cost-effective enough to be provided routinely on the NHS. Government figures show that, to date, 72,000 people have received life-extending cancer drugs as a result of the CDF. However, it was recently announced that two secondary breast cancer drugs would be removed from the list with effect from November this year. Although NHS England has stressed that any patient who is on a drug when it is de-listed will continue to receive it until it is no longer clinically effective, the change creates anxiety for people living with secondary breast cancer. Cancer charities hear from a lot of people who are concerned that their options for treatment in the future, when their current treatment is no longer effective, are being reduced.
I understand that new cancer drugs can be extremely expensive and it is important to remember that the NHS has finite resources, but there is a clear opportunity to reform the drug appraisal system and bring together pharmaceutical companies with healthcare professionals to ensure that secondary breast cancer patients can access new drugs at a price that is affordable to the NHS. The CDF was only ever meant to be a short-term solution to the problem, and it is vital that we find a long-term solution.
The final key area that I want to see addressed is co-ordinated and joined-up care. The role of a multi-disciplinary team is to bring together all the healthcare professionals involved in a patient’s care to help to co-ordinate the support that that patient receives. For many primary breast cancer patients, it works very well, bringing together oncologists, nurses, radiotherapists and other professionals to ensure that the patient’s care is joined up and integrated. However, the secondary breast cancer taskforce found that that was simply not the case for secondary breast cancer patients, largely because people living with the disease are under the care of only an oncologist rather than a team of professionals. Because of that gap, opportunities—for example, the opportunity to identify when palliative care would be most beneficial—are being missed. The cancer strategy includes a recommendation that MDTs consider new pathways for secondary patients. The implementation of that recommendation would go a long way towards joining up care more consistently and ensuring that patients’ holistic needs are more likely to be met.
To conclude, I ask the Minister to consider five clear steps: better data collection; greater access to palliative care; more specialist nurses; access to better drugs and treatment; and co-ordinated and joined-up care. To achieve the Government’s aim of being the best in Europe for cancer care, we need to ensure that people survive cancer and that those who are living with incurable cancers like Sue, who I met at the event last week, and Dee, who I believe is in the Public Gallery, are getting the care and support they need to ensure that they can live as well as they can for as long as they can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for giving me the chance to speak in this debate, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on bringing this matter to the House for consideration. This is an opportunity for all of us to participate and throw in our knowledge. We are all fond of the Minister and we know that her replies will be positive because of her knowledge of this subject, which we have discussed on many occasions. I look forward to her response.
This issue is of the utmost importance. I am my party’s health spokesperson at Westminster, so I am well aware of these issues back home, which come much too close to many of us and indeed our constituents.
In yesterday’s debate on the availability of cancer drugs, we discussed many issues. Today we are specifically discussing breast cancer and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire is right that we should take an interest in it. Almost 80 MPs attended the breast cancer function just over a month ago.
I would like to focus specifically on Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that health is a devolved matter, but I want to give some statistical evidence on how important it is to us in Northern Ireland and how much help we need for it in Northern Ireland and on the mainland. According to the Northern Ireland Executive, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among Northern Irish women, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer. I am sure that Members will agree that the figures are worrying: some 1,200 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in Northern Ireland each year and one in nine is expected to develop the disease at some stage in their life.
We all know about the high-profile cases in the press every week—Angelina Jolie is one and Kylie Minogue is another. We think of them because they are household names, but, by speaking about their personal circumstances, they have raised the profile of this disease. In some cases, surgical operations have been done before the disease comes. When we hear about that sort of step, we know that we are talking about something most serious.
There have been welcome developments in breast cancer treatment and care in the Province, including free breast cancer screening for 50 to 70-year-olds every three years. That new initiative, announced by my colleague, Simon Hamilton, illustrates the need for specific action on diagnosis, and early diagnosis in particular, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned. We need to step up to the plate and instigate action wherever we can.
Breast cancer screening is an effective way to detect cancer in its early stages. Early detection is essential to increase survival rates. Just yesterday I tabled a question, asking “what steps” the Minister’s Department
“has taken to ensure that people diagnosed with cancer are (a) diagnosed early and (b) treated immediately.”
Early diagnosis and the availability of treatment are important issues. As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire outlined in his speech, there is a period of time in between them, but we need early diagnosis and early treatment—let us have the two of them together.
Complications arise and treatment is made more difficult when the primary cancer spreads to another part of the body. It is the secondary cancer that we are here—
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. More speakers have requested to speak in the debate than we realised at the beginning. Therefore, accounting for the winding-up speeches, the time available has narrowed considerably to just over five minutes each. I have to push you, Mr Shannon. Having now spoken for four and a half minutes, could you begin to wind up so that we can get everyone in? That would be fantastic. Thank you.
Jim Shannon
I appreciate that. I spoke to you earlier, Ms Dorries, and looked at the figures. I was not aware that we would be down to five minutes, so let me focus on these points.
It is estimated that over a third of those diagnosed with primary breast cancer will develop a secondary cancer within 10 years of their first diagnosis. Again, early detection is the issue. Advancing new treatments and improving those in existence is of the utmost importance, but we must also publicise and promote research and findings on what can be done to prevent both primary and secondary breast cancer and to reduce the risks of them developing.
I see that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) from the Scottish National party is here to make a contribution. I know of her interest in this issue from her previous job, so I look forward to hearing what she and her party have been able to do in Scotland. That is important for the debate.
We should also look at partnerships between Governments, universities and the pharmaceutical companies. In the Minister’s response, will she say what steps will be taken to review the NICE criteria? It seems that some new drugs on the market that could be used to reduce deaths from breast cancer are held up by those criteria. Will she look at that?
I do not believe that we can put a price on life and, when it comes to these issues, we cannot make decisions based on anything other than genuine human compassion and empathy. I hope that the debate will raise awareness for those with breast cancer.
The Minister always responds in a positive fashion. We need to look at the availability of drugs, early diagnosis and early provision of medicine and medical help. We also need to raise this issue with the pharmaceutical companies and review the NICE regulations, because, by doing so, I think we will get more drugs available.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Members who have made contributions so far on this important subject, which affects residents in all of our constituencies. Cancer is, as we all know, a harrowing illness for those who suffer from it and for their families and friends. Three million people will be living with cancer in the United Kingdom by the end of the Parliament.
Two of my close friends who helped me get into this place have fallen victim to cancer since the election. For their sake and that of the 550 people in Wiltshire under the age of 75 who die of cancer every year, cancer must remain at the top of the agenda. There must be a long-term strategy for combating this dreadful illness.
Cancer touches everyone’s lives at some point. Most people with cancer want to ensure that they have the best information as fast as possible. Many go trawling through the internet, looking at not just drugs, but other treatments that could help such as diet, exercise and complementary therapies.
Today’s cancer patients know that there are things they can do to improve their chance of survival. They want to increase their knowledge so that they can make personal, well informed decisions and create personal treatment packages around their doctors’ treatments.
No two patients wish for identical forms of care, which is why it is important that the Government have taken steps on personal support. There are now clinician nurse specialists for those with secondary breast cancer, which is a good step in the right direction.
As the Minister will know, Macmillan Cancer Support is calling on the Government to fund an independent review of choices for end-of-life care. I encourage them to look closely at what Macmillan has to say. I know that Ministers are committed to improving the detection and treatment of breast cancer, in particular to avoid the risk of secondary breast cancer developing. I am encouraged that breast cancer survival rates have increased, but there is a lot more to be done.
The only way I can foresee that we can combat secondary breast cancer is by focusing on reducing primary cancer. Survival time post-diagnosis depends on several factors, including the stages of diagnosis, the overall health of the patient and the quality of care they receive.
I have been concerned for a long time that one group of people is often overlooked: the older generation. Cancer is not part of old age, although it is seen by many to be. We need to consider how we reach our elderly through information and support, to give them the confidence to seek medical treatment. Too often, pensioners such as my grandmother are too afraid to go to the doctor because they fear they will end up going into hospital and never coming back, so they leave it until it is simply too late. It does not have to be that way.
One solution to combat that is providing more services at a community level, so that the fear of going to hospital is reduced. I am pleased to say that that has already been piloted in Wiltshire for chemotherapy services with the help of Hope for Tomorrow, a charity that provides mobile chemotherapy units and for which I am a regular fundraiser. That is just one example of how we can go much further in the field.
There is work to be done to reduce the health inequality shown by higher rates of mortality in deprived areas. Assessing risky lifestyle behaviours such as smoking and poor diets, combined with active screening and symptom awareness programmes, is vital.
Last weekend, a close family friend of mine lost their battle and died of secondary breast cancer. I learned from first-hand experience that the most important thing we need to do is improve care across the entire cancer journey. We need to start looking at it as a journey and to ensure that a personalised and individual programme is developed, with the family playing a part. It is of the utmost importance that secondary breast cancer patients have access to appropriate services or are referred to specialist palliative care, which can provide more effective pain relief in the management of illnesses, if they so wish.
The cost of cancer will undoubtedly continue to rise during this Parliament. That is why I return to the need for a clear long-term strategy to address this problem. That includes investing in reducing the impact of primary cancers to save money and to save lives in the long run, as well as personal cancer care plans for those living with cancer.
In conclusion, I hope we will do even more to support those living with cancer because this disease touches so many of our lives and affects so many people. I hope the Minister will look closely at Macmillan’s proposals to fund an independent review of end-of-life care choices.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing this extremely important debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having worked as a clinical psychologist in the NHS for 20 years.
A diagnosis of secondary breast cancer means that the cancer can be treated but not cured. In those cases, the aim of treatment is to control and slow down the spread of the disease, to relieve symptoms and to give the person the best possible quality of life for as long as possible. At present, there are many treatments that can keep the cancer under control, often for many years. However, when it comes to breast cancer, it appears that the focus has overwhelmingly been on primary breast cancer, and there has been a lack of awareness of and attention to secondary breast cancer. This is therefore an extremely important debate, particularly as this month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
There appear to be real problems with equity of care across the country. While there are examples of good practice, it appears that quality of care can depend upon location, and that people with secondary breast cancer often receive inadequate care. Access to a clinical nurse specialist from the point of diagnosis onwards has been highlighted as an extremely important development, as has a multidisciplinary team approach to people’s care.
I would like to highlight the relevance of continuity of care between hospital and community services, alongside timely information on all aspects of treatment and care for patients. Access to information, as has been described, about both local and national services is crucial, as well as access to expertise in palliative care for symptom control and ongoing management of troublesome symptoms. It is important that support is provided for the partners, families and children of patients, and I hope the Minister will comment on that in her response. Access to appropriate treatments is also important, as is being made aware of the availability of local clinical trials that may be pertinent.
There has to be a regular assessment of patients’ emotional wellbeing and access to an appropriate level of psychological support. That support should be available whenever needed by the patient, particularly at diagnosis, when cancer progresses and at the end of each treatment. I am aware that Breast Cancer Now has highlighted the huge emotional toll for women living with secondary breast cancer in terms of the anxiety and uncertainty of having to go for regular scanning to monitor their condition. In a video on Breast Cancer Now’s website, one patient describes her experience of going for scanning every three months and then having to wait two weeks to find out the result. During that period, she describes experiencing “scan anxiety” about the potential outcome. Before getting the results, she mentally prepares herself to expect the worst, so as not to be disappointed. She describes crying due to the emotional stress, even when the news is good, and then going away to live her life for another two months before having to start the cycle again.
I am aware of three important articles in The Lancet from 2014 that looked at the prevalence of depression and mental health problems in oncology patients, including those with secondary cancer, the majority of whom were receiving no form of treatment for their mental health difficulties. The recovery from and management of physical conditions is aided by people having good mental health and wellbeing, and that is corroborated by NICE guidance from 2009. There is therefore a need for greater access to psychological therapy provided by the NHS, which has often been inadequate. There should be increased training for clinical nurse specialists in psychological modes of therapy such as cognitive behavioural therapy, so that they can directly assist patients. Greater parity between physical and mental health services is key, alongside greater integration of those services for patients who have a dual diagnosis.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey); I just gave him a promotion—for securing the debate.
I come to this with a slightly different hat on. As I prepared to speak, I tried to decide whether the word “cancer” or “secondary” was the scariest. For me, it is “secondary”. I have had cancer a couple of times, and the scan anxiety that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) talked of is so real, as is the need for joined-up services and clinical nurse specialists. We need to be able to be a person in the pipeline. Owing to the shortness of time, I will not say a lot of what I was going to say, but I will try to concentrate on what it feels like for the person.
We know the statistics. We know that 50,000 women and men—we must remember that there are men with breast cancer too—get breast cancer per year. The good news for primary breast cancer sufferers is that many of those people are survivors. Victoria Derbyshire is a fine example to us only this morning, in the papers; good luck to her with her battle.
Some of my friends and constituents to whom I have spoken have had secondary or metastatic breast cancer. It sounds hopeless, but it is not. With improved drugs and more targeted and tailored treatment, survival time is longer. Yes, there are 36,000 people living with breast cancer, but it is better quality survival that most of us want. It is about the quality of survival.
I started my journey to becoming an MP by talking in 2010 in one of the rooms in this place about primary cancers and how we had some of the poorest outcomes in Europe. Things are not so much better in 2015. We need to keep our feet to the fire and ensure we push hard on this disease, so that we start to get real progress for primary, and particularly secondary, cancers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) mentioned old age but those from various ethnic minorities also have extremely poor outcomes. We must pay heed to that. How can we get better outcomes? The cancer strategy for England calls for improvements from pre-diagnosis to post-treatment. That is vital but we should ensure that patients receive optimum support and interventions so that they can get on with their lives. We need to think about lifestyles and lifetimes, and about which cancer services we need, to enable people to carry on working for as long as they want, so that they feel like people, not like cancer patients. That is the important thing for people living with this disease. We want people to lead healthy, fulfilled and productive lives, whichever stage of the disease they are at. The strategy proposes the development of a national metric of quality of life, underpinned by a robust approach to measurement, which will incentivise the provision of better aftercare interventions.
We want multidisciplinary teams. They really improve outcomes for patients and, when people are diagnosed, they want people other than oncologists. They want to talk to a psychologist as the disease sometimes messes with their heads more than it does with their bodies. That important pipeline is, oh, so needed. There should be robust surveillance systems, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said. It is important that we know what we know, so that we know how to get to the root cause of the problem.
Since 2011, six breast cancer drugs have been available. There was a debate in this place yesterday about the cancer drugs fund. We need sustainable funding to ensure that women and men get the treatment that they need. Treatment should not be a lottery. In my view, this pot is a sticking plaster that has gone a bit curly around the edges. It needs revising and refreshing. There needs to be an efficient way of moving drugs from the cancer drugs fund into positive and routine commissioning. Currently, it is out of date and not fit for purpose.
I welcome the accelerated access review, which reports at the end of the year, and the cancer drugs fund, but I urge the Government to make some speedy decisions because, as 4 November looms, people are sitting on the edge of decision making, not knowing whether they are likely to get treatment or not. Although we have said that women and men who are on their treatment programme will still receive that treatment, it is not so certain for those who are not yet on those drugs.
We could learn a little from the Scottish Medicines Consortium because, on this, it does some things a little better than we are managing to do. It commissions and moves more swiftly. We could also unblock our pipelines. We are potentially disabling innovative medicines. We need to trial innovative drugs that can be used to prolong life and have a conversation with pharmaceutical companies if England does not want to fall behind in the race to make the medicines of the 21st century.
Research is so important, as is this debate on secondary breast cancer because science will unlock the ability to fight the disease. Geneticists on the 1000 Genomes Project have already discovered more than 100 regions of the genome that contain genetic variants. Work goes on in labs, such as the Genesis Genetics research, targeting who is susceptible and why. If we know people are more susceptible, the better they can be treated. Evidence-based is good but it charges industry and researchers with helping to drive things forward.
As a survivor and someone who has held too many women for whom secondary breast cancer has not offered longevity, I dream of a day when immunotherapy, CyberKnife and the work of drugs companies means that this insidious disease is a has-been. We need a lifetime approach, preventive medicine and preventive care. We need to watch our weight, keep healthy and be active, and the drugs that we need when we need them—in hospital or in the community.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for securing this debate, which marks breast cancer awareness month. Most Members know my interest. I was a breast cancer surgeon for 33 years. The hon. Gentleman said that secondary breast cancer does not gain from the focus that we put on primary breast cancer. I have to disagree with that. In Scotland, we collect the stage at diagnosis and one in five patients still have metastases at the time of diagnosis. That means that we still have a huge job to do to get earlier diagnosis through screening and raising awareness, which is what October is all about. We are limited for time and I will do my best to respond to as many points as possible.
Regarding audit, I chaired the discussions on quality improvement standards for breast cancer in 2001, at which time we discovered that about a quarter of units did not gather any data at all. By 2003, we had managed to change that and we were getting data on the primary treatment of patients. That was against the breast cancer standards that we had set for the entire journey that a patient would go through. In 2007, I was chair for the update of those standards and, at that point, it became a standard that all patients with recurrence or metastases must come back to the multidisciplinary team for discussion. At that point, those data are also gathered. As yet, we do not have a Scottish-wide, absolutely rock-solid way of providing the data. They are being collected through our cancer registry, from SMR01 data and from what we do in-house.
In my unit in Ayrshire, we had a follow-up page for the patient at the end of the data system. Every year when the patient came for the follow-up, a chitty was ticked, sent up to the office and on it went, showing that the patient was alive and well on whatever date they had come. For patients moving to mammographic follow-up, if the mammogram is clear and there are no issues, the procedure is the same. The data on patients with recurrence or metastases must be collected at the multidisciplinary team. That is something that we were doing. We have to look at the systems to make it easy and not burdensome, but that requires that hospitals and trusts have an audit team. Our auditor sits in the multidisciplinary team, where she captures all the treatment of the primary and secondary patients. That is really important.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned CNSs. There are different approaches. In our unit, we treat approximately 400 new breast cancers every year, which means that a significant number of patients have recurrent and secondary breast cancer. We talked about whether we should split our teams and have one for secondary breast cancer. We decided against that because we have a breast cancer team, which the patient will have met at the beginning. I felt that meeting the same team—a friendly face or someone the patient knew from three or four years ago—is a benefit.
Many units have surgical cancer nurse specialists, who do not move into chemotherapy or oncology. Obviously, that would not work that way. Our cancer nurse specialists travel the whole journey with the patient, looking after the patient in the surgical part of the journey and in the oncology clinic during chemotherapy. They are also there if the patient is unlucky enough to face recurrence or metastases. I believe that this linear approach—as long as enough nurses are provided for that support—gives the advantage of continuity.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned looking at the wellbeing of patients. In Scotland, we use something called the distress thermometer, which is used for patients undergoing treatment for primary and secondary breast cancers. It is quite a quick, easy tool that, at least, allows us to pick out a patient who is not doing so well and therefore identify them for additional support. Our cancer nurse specialists have all had additional training. We have a specialist oncology psychologist on our health board, who provides additional training to the nurses. Therefore, for someone who needs it, that extra help and counselling is available. For someone with more complex needs, or where the diagnosis of breast cancer or metastatic breast cancer comes on top of mental health issues, the oncology psychologist would give us that back-up by taking on the patient.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned palliative care. In Ayrshire, we are lucky enough to have a hospice. It is routine for us to refer patients at the point at which they are metastatic and symptomatic. We do not refer them as soon as they are metastatic because if a patient is hormone-sensitive, they have a 50% five-year survival with metastatic disease. That is because we have so many treatment options and breast cancer appears to behave quite differently from other cancers in that we can get it into a balance. The patient can be very well and active, yet the disease is sitting there. As soon as the patient starts to have symptoms, we have liaison nurses in our hospitals and we make a referral. Part of our GPs’ quality outcome framework is that patients who are defined as palliative must be discussed regularly in primary care and be on a palliative care register.
We had the debate on assisted dying just last month. The clear decision of the House was that we would not go down that route. That throws back on to the Government, and us all, the responsibility to ensure that high-quality palliative care services are there. We cannot vote that way as convincingly as we did and then not step up to the mark. That is really important.
I do not have a lot of time to speak, but I should say that we are doing good things in Scotland. Because we are smaller, we have been able to create a single day when all the teams in Scotland come together—actually, they come together for two days: a trial and research day and an audit day. Our whole audit—all the dirty washing—is put up in a PowerPoint presentation and we have a completely open learning discussion about it. A one-year project is starting now, so hopefully the data, including detail on secondary, recurrence and survival, will be available in autumn next year.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing this important debate and the laudable and worthwhile work he is doing as a member of the all-party group on breast cancer.
We have made huge progress on improving cancer services—in the past decade, five-year survival rates for nearly all types of cancer have improved—but we still lag behind other countries, and there is worrying evidence from the past five years that the progress we have been making on cancer care has stalled, or potentially even gone backwards. In government, Labour created 28 cancer networks to drive change and improvement in cancer services. The networks brought together the providers and commissioners of cancer care to work together to plan and deliver high-quality cancer services in their areas. They helped to oversee and drive up the quality of services delivered to cancer patients. By significantly changing their structure and cutting millions from their budgets, as well as by scrapping the highly regarded national cancer action team, the coalition Government disrupted those networks.
Our hard-working clinicians and staff are trying their best within the system; despite the challenges, they continue to deliver quality care, so we should all pay tribute to them. Early diagnosis is critical to improving cancer survival because treatment is more likely to be successful at an earlier stage. Naturally, far too many of those people diagnosed through the emergency route are in the advanced stages, meaning the prognosis is poor compared with that for cancer diagnosed through other routes.
The nature of cancer is changing. Just as with AIDS, rapid advances in technology have meant that for many cancer is no longer the death sentence it once was. Such welcome changes do, however, mean that cancer is increasingly being considered a long-term condition, which has its own requirements in terms of long-term care and support. The chance of recurrence, as in secondary breast cancer, underlines the importance of remaining vigilant. It is possible to reduce considerably the probability that people with cancer will experience long-term poor health following treatment by providing appropriate and co-ordinated support and intervention. That is what we must do.
No breast cancer patient should end up lost in our vast health system, unable to find the treatment to which they are entitled. Cancer survivors have to be properly supported once their treatment stops to help their recovery and minimise the impact of their illness on their overall health and wellbeing. The current formulaic approaches are not meeting the needs of cancer patients, and the current hospital-based follow-up service simply will not cope with the growing cancer population.
If implemented, the strategy developed by the Independent Cancer Taskforce in its report would be a huge leap forward. I am pleased that the Department of Health has already made some commitments, and we look forward to hearing more following the spending review, but we need to ensure that these things actually happen. Equally, the cancer strategy recommendation of a “living with and beyond cancer” programme to ensure that people are fully supported and their needs are met should be followed through. I commend those developing support networks in their local areas, but they deserve more backing from the Government. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that everybody has a recovery package by 2020. That is crucial, as one in three people experience moderate to severe unmet needs after their treatment.
We owe it to the families battling secondary breast cancer today to continue to have high ambitions. I thank all Members for their contributions. Despite political differences, we do all have the same ambition: to bring forward the day when this terrible disease is beaten.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate all colleagues on an excellent debate. It is a shame that time has slightly beaten us. I fear it will beat me as well: if I am to allow a minute or so for my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) to respond at the end, I might not have the chance to make some of the points I would like to have made. Nevertheless, this debate in Breast Cancer Awareness Month is very timely for all the reasons mentioned. There have been some important contributions. I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford); she brings incredible experience to debates of this nature.
As the cancer drugs fund was debated in this Chamber only yesterday with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences, I will not touch on that so that I save a little time. As others have said, we want to do a lot better in tackling cancer, and our aim is to lead the world. Survival rates are getting a lot better: for people diagnosed between 2011 and 2015, we are on track to save a projected 12,000 more lives a year. But we do want to go further. Nevertheless, as we ask what more we can do, we should acknowledge that we are making progress, although much of the rest of the world is too.
In January, NHS England asked the independent cancer taskforce to draw up a five-year strategy. It was published in July and recommends a range of improvements across the cancer pathway. Some Members were present in the House in July when the chair of the taskforce, Harpal Kumar, presented its conclusions to us. The strategy is an excellent bit of work and, as our manifesto made clear, we are working with the NHS, charities and patient groups to deliver it. It is important to tell the House that to support the delivery of the strategy, NHS England has appointed Cally Palmer, chief executive of the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, as NHS national cancer director. While continuing in her current position, she will lead the implementation of the strategy, alongside work to test new models of care at the Royal Marsden hospital and University College London hospital, in partnership with Manchester Cancer. Those are important developments.
The importance of secondary breast cancer was acknowledged in the taskforce report, which noted that all NHS trusts should now be recording recurrent and secondary breast cancer patients, but we acknowledge that uptake has been variable thus far, as highlighted in the opening speech. I made the importance of data collection one of the strategic priorities in my letter to Public Health England earlier this year, so we know that we need to do better.
Following a 2012 pilot managed by the National Cancer Intelligence Network, all breast units have been required to submit information on all patients diagnosed with a new recurrence or metastatic disease through the cancer waiting times process. For breast cancer cases, that now includes a data item on cancer recurrence. Data have been submitted monthly since January 2013, but collection remains challenging because relapsed patients may re-present in many different ways and through many referral routes, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned. For example, they might re-present through a routine follow-up appointment, by contacting their GP with renewed symptoms or by presenting with another unrelated condition, at which point secondary breast cancer has been diagnosed. There are some practical barriers, but we do need to do better.
To drive up the quality and completeness of the data, trusts are sent monthly reports so that they can benchmark themselves against other trusts, which has been effective in driving up performance in other areas of cancer care. Over the next year, those reports will include data on recurrence of cancer. In addition, more work is being scoped by NHS England and Public Health England based on the recommendation from the cancer taskforce to establish robust surveillance systems to collect relevant data. We know there is more to be done on the detection of secondary breast cancer, which can be diagnosed many years after primary breast cancer, as other Members have said. Although survival rates are improving, the breast cancer clinical reference group of NHS England is determined to ensure that everything possible is done to reduce the risk of secondary breast cancer. The group is in the final stages of producing a guideline on breast cancer services to improve information given to patients about the risk of secondary breast cancer. Such information is currently variable and sometimes inadequate, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill).
Mark Durkan
The Minister touches on a point that reinforces the fact that, as a basic rule of thumb, policy makers and service planners should know the numbers and the needs. She addressed the numbers when she spoke about data. Knowledge about needs is best developed by listening to the patients themselves, who expressed those needs forcefully in the five-point bucket list from Breast Cancer Care.
Jane Ellison
I am sure we would all agree with that important point.
I will finish by discussing the new guideline that the clinical reference group is developing. The guideline will state that all patients with primary breast cancer should have a consultation with a clinician at the end of treatment that will include advice on spotting signs and symptoms that might indicate secondary breast cancer. That information will be delivered together with an assessment of the patient’s physical, psychological and social needs—I am interested in the distress thermometer that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned, as well as in the contribution of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). The overall recovery package is being developed in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Support. The evidence is that that work is very effective where it has been done well. The advice that has been given will be recorded in the records of every breast cancer patient so that we know it has happened and so that we can track it.
NHS England hopes to publish the new guidance as a cancer resource on its website in the next few weeks. We will promote that guidance through the usual channels, but we would appreciate it if hon. Members with a particular interest, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire—I congratulate him on his appointment as co-chair of the all-party group—could draw this important document to people’s attention.
The clinical reference group will also consider how the care and support of patients diagnosed with secondary breast cancer can be improved, including through the provision of clinical nurse specialists. Of course, we agree that clinical nurse specialists play an important role. The number of patients reporting that they have been given the name of a CNS rose from 84% in 2010 to 89% in 2014, including 93% of breast cancer patients. We are doing a lot better, but hon. Members are right to highlight that, in the case of secondary breast cancer, we have some distance to go.
Members have said that we need to step up on palliative care, particularly in the light of last month’s debate—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire made an important speech in that debate. We are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to high-quality, personalised palliative care. Breast Cancer Care’s new report, “Too little, too late”, is an important contribution to the debate about what we need to do. The Government have introduced five new priorities for end-of-life care—those are five important new principles—and my ministerial colleagues will be taking that forward. Nevertheless, I welcome Parliament’s new focus on palliative care and quality end-of-life care, which is important.
In the few seconds that I have remaining, I want to give people confidence that a lot of research is going on in this area. There is more research into cancer than any other disease in terms of National Institute for Health Research funding. In particular, the NIHR’s clinical research network is currently recruiting patients for nearly 100 trials and studies in breast cancer. One is a global trial that aims better to control secondary breast cancer using a drug called a dual mTOR inhibitor. I am delighted to say that the network recruited the first patient in the world to this trial, which I hope is an indication of the importance of our research infrastructure.
Jane Ellison
I am afraid that I do not have time to give way. We can speak after the debate; I apologise.
A lot of other things are going on in that area, but I will leave just a few seconds to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. However, I reassure Members that this subject is of huge importance to the Government.
Craig Tracey
I will be very quick.
I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the other Front-Bench spokesmen, especially the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) who obviously brings a great deal of expertise to the debate. I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) for sharing her experience.
It is clear from the debate that we all have the same objectives; we all want to get the same thing and there are many common arguments. However, the fact remains that 11,700 people still die from secondary breast cancer every year, so there is more that we can do. I ask the Minister to ensure that more is considered in relation to secondary breast cancer.
Written Statements
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Investments
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
EDF and its Chinese partner China General Nuclear Corporation (CGN) have committed to Hinkley Point C during this week’s landmark China state visit, confirming that Somerset will have the first new nuclear power station in the UK for a generation.
The companies have signed a strategic investment agreement which marks a critical moment for the site in Somerset. EDF has confirmed it will take a 66.5% stake in Hinkley with CGN taking 33.5%, demonstrating a clear commitment from both parties.
The Government and EDF have finalised the detail of the contract for difference which offers increased price certainty for the electricity produced from Hinkley Point C. The funded decommissioning programme will make sure that the taxpayer does not pick up the cost of decommissioning the plant in the future.
Hinkley Point C will provide low-carbon electricity to 6 million homes, twice as many as the whole of London, for around 60 years—and consumers will not pay a penny until the plant is up and running. It will provide a vital boost for the national and local economy—creating 25,000 jobs, with at least 5,000 people from Somerset expected to work directly on the project, providing a £40 million boost to the local economy every year. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will take her final decision on the contract for difference when EDF and GNI have signed the full investment documentation.
A departmental minute will be presented to Parliament today regarding the scale of the financial commitment associated with the CfD and the potential liabilities to arise in relation to those waste transfer contracts (WTC). I judge the likelihood of these potential WTC liabilities arising to be very low.
[HCWS257]
Police Custody: Deaths and Serious Incidents
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I announced on 23 July my intention to commission an independent review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody.
I am pleased to announce to the House that the review will be led by Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC.
I said that the chairman would be someone with the ability to work closely with victims, families and the police alike, and with a proven track record of being willing to ask difficult questions.
Dame Elish has all of these qualities. She was installed as Solicitor General for Scotland on 5 December 2001, and Lord Advocate on 12 October 2006. Since September 2012 she has been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford. In June 2015, she concluded an independent review for the Metropolitan Police Service into how it and the Crown Prosecution Service investigate and prosecute rape cases. I am grateful to Dame Elish for agreeing to take on this important work.
Police custody is fraught with complex issues. It is the place where dangerous and difficult criminals are rightly detained, where officers and staff regularly face violent, threatening and abusive behaviour, and where the police use some of their most sensitive and coercive powers. But it is also a place where, unfortunately, vulnerable people, including all too often those with mental health problems, are taken because there is no other place to go.
Thankfully, deaths and serious incidents in custody are rare. No one—least of the police—wants such incidents to happen, and I know everyone involved takes steps to avoid them. When such incidents do occur, they are a tragedy that has the potential to undermine the relationship between the public and the police.
As Home Secretary, I have been struck by the pain and suffering of families still looking for answers. That is why I believe we need to do more, and why I announced the establishment of this independent review.
I can also inform the House of the terms of reference of the review. They will be:
To examine the procedures and processes surrounding deaths and serious incidents in police custody, including the lead up to such incidents, the immediate aftermath, through to the conclusion of official investigations. It should consider the extent to which ethnicity is a factor in such incidents. The review should include a particular focus on family involvement and their support experience at all stages.
To examine and identify the reasons and obstacles as to why the current investigation system has fallen short of many families’ needs and expectations, with particular reference to the importance of accountability of those involved and sustained learning following such incidents.
To identify areas for improvement and develop recommendations seeking to ensure appropriate, humane institutional treatment when such incidents, particularly deaths in or following detention in police custody, occur. Recommendations should consider the safety and welfare of all those in the police custody environment, including detainees and police officers and staff. The aim should be to enhance the safety of the police custody setting for all.
Furthermore, I can announce that INQUEST—an organisation that has long campaigned on these issues—has agreed to have a formal role in the review to ensure that the voices of families who have lost loved ones in police custody are heard. Therefore I am also pleased to announce that INQUEST’s director, Deborah Coles, will be a special adviser to the chairman of the review.
In addition, INQUEST shall:
Facilitate family listening days so that the chairman can hear evidence first-hand from those who have lost loved ones in police custody to ensure their views are taken into account.
Play a leading role on an advisory board which will offer expert advice to the chairman during the course of the review.
I wish Dame Elish every success as she delivers this important review.
[HCWS256]
House of Lords
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Diplomatic Missions: Parking Fines
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to recover unpaid parking fines and London congestion charge payments from diplomatic missions and international organisations.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials regularly lobby diplomatic missions about outstanding debts. Debts are raised with new heads of mission when they first call on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Additionally, before the annual statement to Parliament, Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials write to all diplomatic missions and international organisations with unpaid parking fines of more than £500 and unpaid congestion charges of more than £100,000, urging them to settle their debts.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but it just shows that absolutely nothing is happening. The Written Statement on 16 July showed that the diplomatic community as a whole owed £87 million in congestion charges, for which the US won the prize for £9 million and the People’s Republic of China owed £2 million. Why does TfL not get out and clamp all these Rolls-Royces? Better still, why did Boris not think of clamping the Queen’s horse and carriage yesterday, with the president inside it? It might have taught him a lesson.
The Earl of Courtown
I have quite a short answer for the noble Lord. Diplomatic vehicles are inviable—no, I mean inviolable, which is a new word for me.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, there are some more serious offences that various diplomatic missions commit. Some arise from mistreatment and sexual abuse of domestic workers, particularly domestic workers brought from other countries. Since the Government are so concerned about human rights in international relations, as we have seen from their conversations with the Chinese, are they considering pushing within the United Nations for diplomatic immunity to be modified in cases of severe human rights abuses? May I also ask, since Gulf diplomats are the ones who are often the most at stake, could we watch carefully the number of people from Gulf states in London claiming diplomatic status?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, makes a serious point. To be perfectly honest, I do not know what we are doing at the UN on this basis, but I will write to the noble Lord to find out if there is anything more that I can add. Here in the UK, we expect all foreign diplomats to abide by UK laws at all times. We take a firm line with diplomatic missions and international organisations whose diplomats commit offences.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 210 years ago at this time Admiral Nelson lay dying on the orlop deck of HMS “Victory”. I raise this because we are discussing international organisations, and Nelson had showed the value of a British battle fleet in negotiating with international organisations. This led to 100 years of Pax Britannica. Twice in the last century the Navy ensured the survival of the nation. Does the Minister feel that it is appropriate to wish the Navy good luck on the 210th anniversary of Trafalgar?
The Earl of Courtown
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord West. I was wondering what the sting in the tail would be. As we joked beforehand, he was going to suggest that we tab No. 10.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Earl please tell the House whether there are parking or other fines which other people have tried to charge us for, for instance in New York, and do we pay them or not?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, is very aware, our staff from his old department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, pay their fines and abide by the regulations as much as they can.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend can tell me why diplomatic cars are—what was the word?—inviolable.
The Earl of Courtown
Basically, My Lords, my noble friend asked about “inviolable”—I think “immune” is probably a better way of putting it—but this comes under the Vienna convention.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Is the noble Earl aware that this has been an ongoing problem for well over 60 years? I remember that in the 1970s the Foreign Office analysed not only who owed what, but where the cars were parked. Is it still the case that the majority of these cars that are clamped, or which noble Lords recommend should be clamped, would create a traffic jam outside Harrods?
The Earl of Courtown
This problem has been going on for many years. I think that there is a particular problem at the moment with the congestion charge, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, where some overseas diplomatic missions consider that it is a tax as opposed to a charge.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, if, as the noble Earl says, diplomatic cars and, presumably, their occupants, are inviolable, why is so much time and, indeed, parliamentary time, wasted on levying these fines in the first place?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I do not think that parliamentary time is used in levying these fines. This is a matter for Transport for London.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, is there a maximum number of cars allowed to each diplomatic mission, or does this measure apply to all cars, some missions being bigger than others?
Lord Christopher (Lab)
If one should have the good fortune to earn a little money in America, you will find that you cannot escape from America until you have paid the tax. All we need to do, if I may suggest it, is to revise the names of these charges and call them a tax and the American ambassador could not leave until the tax was paid.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, as I said in my earlier Answer, we are in continual negotiation with the various missions, reminding them of their duty when they come to this country to obey the law and pay their parking fines and the congestion charge. Officials from the Department for Transport and Transport for London continue to press non-paying diplomatic missions to pay the congestion charge, and work to identify a solution to the legal impasse with non-paying missions.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the fact that the Minister admits ignorance mean that the Front Bench is inviolable?
Civilian Translators and Interpreters
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will mark the United Kingdom’s Presidency of the UN Security Council in November 2015 by tabling a draft resolution on the protection of civilian translators and interpreters in conflict situations.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, in asking the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Government consistently use the influence provided by our seat on the UN Security Council to urge all states to increase the protection of civilians in conflict situations. Interpreters and translators are, like all civilians, entitled to protection during armed conflict under international humanitarian law. The United Kingdom has no current plans to table a UN Security Council resolution on the protection of interpreters and translators during its presidency in November.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, that reply is disappointing because interpreters and translators in conflict situations are not just like all other civilians. It is a hazardous profession and their vulnerability continues well after the conflict is over, as we have seen in Afghanistan. Do Her Majesty’s Government accept that interpreters and translators deserve to be on the same footing as journalists in conflict zones, who already enjoy extra protection in international law? The UN resolution on journalists received unanimous support so if not in November, when will the UK support similar action to protect vulnerable linguists, such as the draft resolution being proposed by a global alliance of professional and voluntary organisations?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the situation with journalists is different. We supported UN Security Council Resolution 2222 in May on the protection of journalists because of the unique role they play in building open and democratic societies and the increased dangers they face as a consequence. Freedom of expression and of the media are essential qualities of any functioning democracy.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the total net migration into the United Kingdom last year was 330,000 people. Why was it impossible to let in Afghan interpreters, whose lives were in great danger and who very often saved the lives of our servicemen? I think their total number was something like 130.
The Earl of Courtown
I think the figure my noble friend mentions is fairly close. Around 130 of the locally engaged staff have successfully come to the United Kingdom with their families, which amounts to 460 people.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, are Ministers still unaware of any case of a translator or interpreter in Afghanistan being killed following intimidation, as they were in August? Might an alternative to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness be for the Security Council to invite the UNHCR to survey the schemes for the protection of civilian translators and interpreters that have been developed by the various NATO countries in Afghanistan, in order to identify best practice and make recommendations on meeting the obligation to protect?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I cannot comment on any individual cases but I can say that we continue to lobby strongly at the United Nations for measures that will improve the protection of civilians as a whole in conflict areas. This requires a greater compliance with international laws by state and non-state actors, an improved response and action by the international community, and support to states to develop their capabilities to protect their own populations.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, again on Afghanistan, does the Minister accept that the British public may have doubts about the validity of claims for asylum from those coming from what are safe countries in the Balkans but that there is a great well of sympathy for those who have put their lives in danger to help this country?
The Earl of Courtown
I agree with much of what the noble Lord says. In Bosnia, for example, we provided our local staff with a financial payment on redundancy when their services were no longer required as the campaign drew on. In Iraq there was another scheme. Different countries require different schemes and it was not felt that the same scheme that was available in Iraq would have been suitable in Afghanistan.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Can the noble Earl return to the question that my noble friend raised with him a few moments ago, specifically as to why journalists are covered—as they are by the Geneva Conventions—but translators and interpreters are not? Do we have any plans to seek an amendment to the conventions so that they might be so covered?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I do not think there is a great deal I can add to the answer I have already given to the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is aware that 64 civilian journalists and support staff have been killed so far this year. The whole world grieved at the events in Paris earlier this year. It is important to remember that journalists and bloggers face intimidation and violence around the world as well.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I do not think anybody in this House would disagree with my noble friend in what he says about journalists. But we are talking about another, truly unique, category of people—those who assist us, sometimes when our forces are at the point of death, and who are giving of their services in an exemplary way. Can we not back, or even introduce, a resolution in the UN that will give them the same degree of protection as journalists rightly enjoy?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I do not want to get repetitive on this subject but, as I have said, we continue to press other countries in the United Nations about civilians in danger. However, at the moment, we do not feel that it is right to treat interpreters in the same way as journalists.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister explained that different packages are offered in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Can he explain why there is a difference, bearing in mind the circumstances of conflict going on in both countries?
The Earl of Courtown
I thank the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to explain the reason. In Iraq, our translators were recruited from the areas they were going to work in; in Afghanistan, they were recruited from areas away from where they were going to work.
Developing Nations: Technical and Vocational Education
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage technical and vocational education and training to increase women’s employability in developing nations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, good-quality primary and secondary education deliver the highest dividends for poor people, especially girls. The UK Government are supporting 5.3 million girls in school in developing countries, to equip them with the skills for future learning and employment. For example, we are working with Coca-Cola in Nigeria to give 12,600 young women business skills. During 2014 in Nepal, the Employment Fund programme conducted skills training for more than 13,000 young people, of whom 56% were young women.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that response. Following the recent African ministerial conference on this subject in Rwanda, can she say how involved the Government will be in this discourse to promote the involvement of girls and women in technical and vocational education in Africa?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, my department, DfID, has bilateral education programmes in 12 African countries where we support the priorities of our partner Governments. As the poorest children are still denied a quality basic education, that is where the majority of our support is focused. In Rwanda, we are the lead education donor and work closely with the German development agency which leads on support for technical and vocational skills.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Can the Minister tell us why entrepreneurship is not included in that? When you give women in developing countries some eggs or newly hatched chicks, they turn themselves into businesswomen and are able to feed their families because they become poultry farmers. The same applies to many other things—they run a restaurant or something of that type. I was favoured enough to be chairman of Plan International UK for 12 years and saw this across the world, in Latin America, Africa and Asia. It is just as important to be sure that education includes the idea that they might run their own businesses.
Baroness Verma
My noble friend is absolutely right, but the starting point needs to be good education. My noble friend is right: we must increase female entrepreneurs’ ability to flourish. I have just come back from Zambia, where I saw programmes on the ground where cash transfer schemes have worked and a little money or a little intervention goes a long way in ensuring that women have economic empowerment.
Lord Loomba (LD)
My Lords, despite all the cuts announced recently, it is encouraging that the Government are continuing 0.7% in financial aid to developing countries. How much of that aid is being used or earmarked for increased women’s employability through technical and vocational education and training?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Lord asks a really important question. However, we have made sure that women and girls remain at the heart of each DfID programme in each country in which we are working, so we have not disaggregated that amount. I can assure the noble Lord that, with the agreement of the new SDGs, we continue to place girls and women at the heart of those programmes. We are really pleased that we got the stand-alone women SDG within the agreed SDG goals this September. However, there is a lot of work to be done and we are encouraging our partners to step up to the mark, just as the UK is doing.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, what is DfID doing to ensure that women with disabilities are included in any training? She just referred to the SDGs, which make the point that extreme poverty will not be eradicated unless we leave no one behind.
Baroness Verma
Absolutely. Again, the UK should be congratulated on the work that we are doing as a Government to ensure that disability features strongly in all our programmes. On disability in schools, we made a commitment in 2013, as the noble Baroness will be aware, that we will directly fund schools only where there is disability access. The disability review is coming up on 3 December, and, if the noble Baroness is interested, I would be very happy to share the outcome of that with her.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is well aware of the work of BRAC in Bangladesh, in particular, in revolutionising women’s employment and entrepreneurship. Can she tell us what work BRAC is doing to advance in that arena to diversify those women’s employment opportunities through technical and vocational training—perhaps including computer training?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I will not specifically go into that programme, because we should be proud of our programme across DfID. That is about increasing employment—productive employment—for women. As I said, they start from school, where we give them the opportunity to gain an education and skills. We can then develop to ensure that they are both productive economically and, where they are unpaid, able to use those skills to develop entrepreneurialism outside their workplaces. I read in a recent report that if we give women opportunities, we can add $28 trillion-worth of value to our global GDP.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that the Commonwealth is giving the highest priority to gender equality and full employability of women? That is based on the simple proposition that countries that do not give absolute equality to half their labour force will simply not develop—growth goes with gender equality. Is she aware that in Malta, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November, there will be a major conference on gender equality lasting four days which will be attended by all 53 nations of the Commonwealth?
Baroness Verma
I absolutely agree with my noble friend, and I will be attending to ensure that we again participate in those important debates. My noble friend makes the poignant point that unless we have everybody involved in economic productivity, we lose the value of 50% of the world’s population.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said about the Commonwealth, but I wonder what the Commonwealth is doing to ensure that LGBT people are also properly employed throughout the Commonwealth.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble Baroness may rest assured that my noble friend Lady Anelay and I raise these issues all the time. Like her, we very much share the belief that accessibility should be for all people and that no one should be left behind.
Graham Ovenden: Art Collection
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to intervene to save work from the collection of Graham Ovenden, including work by Pierre Louys and others, from destruction following the ruling made at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court on 13 October.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Shields) (Con)
My Lords, this Question relates to a specific judicial matter. The Government have no power to intervene in the courts. However, for clarity, this decision relates to the public art collection of a convicted paedophile, which involves images that directly depict the sexual abuse of children. This does not affect the works of art of any public gallery or museum.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, apart from the potential fate of the art itself, does the Minister agree that this unprecedented judgment has disturbing and huge implications for the protection of other work in the country—for instance, the Warren cup in the British Museum—as well as for the freedom of expression of many contemporary artists? Where is the consistency of this judgment in relation to others? Please will the Minister place a list of the art ordered to be destroyed, and the judgment, in the Library of the House as soon as possible?
Baroness Shields
The Government will definitely place a list of the art to be destroyed by this judgment in the Library as soon as possible. Sexually explicit art and its creation by artists in this country are not put at risk by this judgment. The judge in this case took into account the fact that this private collection features sexually abusive images, which in England and Wales it is a criminal offence to possess.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I heard what the Minister said, but as a matter of principle is it not surprising that a district judge can make absolute moral and aesthetic judgments of this kind involving the destruction of artworks, some of which are more than 100 years old? Is not a much better solution to this to limit display rather than to destroy these works of art? Are we not confusing the artist with the art involved?
Baroness Shields
My Lords, this case relates to the artist’s private collection. The trustees of the Tate decided no longer to display this art because some of the victims could have been part of the art display, so crime scenes would have been on display in the Tate. There is a statement about that. This case relates to the individual collection. The only person who can appeal is the convicted criminal.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, there are 21 days for this appeal to be heard; therefore there is time to explore further some of the issues raised here. Are the Government really saying that it is all right to criticise totalitarian regimes elsewhere for destroying art but we are not prepared to take action within ourselves? What happened to our recollections of the Lady Chatterley case? What about the OZ prosecutions? Are there not lessons to be learned about civilised societies and the way they operate? I appeal to the Minister to call a meeting of interested parties in this House to see what options there are to try to rescue the art, accepting that the case of the artist must be left alone.
Baroness Shields
I would be happy to call a group to address this issue. In this case, it is up to the individual to appeal the judge’s decision; I understand that the judicial process is for him to make that decision. If there is some way that an interested party could encourage him to make that decision, that would be the route I would suggest.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse what has been said about this matter of principle. The aesthetics of this country and its art cannot be determined by the magistracy. This is an important decision of principle regardless of what is in this collection. The collection does not have to go on display; it simply does not have to be destroyed. Do not forget that the magistracy ordered the seizure of paintings by DH Lawrence which are now collected and are of great value everywhere.
Baroness Shields
I agree that the optics of this are concerning. I think the best route forward is to convene a group and to come up with a creative solution, as the noble Lord suggested, because the Government cannot intervene in the judicial process. We need another route in order to protect and save the art. There are works of art in this collection that relate specifically to individuals and are child sexual abuse images. Noble Lords will agree that they should definitely be destroyed.
Energy Bill [HL]
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:42 - Division on Amendment 78Q - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 78Q agreed.
18:47 - Division on Amendment 78UA - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 78UA agreed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, as I discuss the amendments today, I want to remind noble Lords of what has already been achieved. At the end of April 2015 there were 490 operational onshore wind farms in the United Kingdom, with an installed capacity of 8.3 gigawatts—enough to power the equivalent of more than 4.5 million homes. Considering the projects that already had planning permission and so on, there is enough onshore wind in the pipeline to contribute to what is needed to meet our ambition of 30% of electricity from renewables by 2020. This is a significant achievement, made possible only by consumer subsidies. The Government have estimated that in 2015-16, £850 million of support will go towards funding onshore wind across the United Kingdom, with around £520 million, approximately 60%, going towards funding Scottish onshore wind farms.
It is too soon to predict what the best energy mix will be as we move beyond 2020 but, as we continue on our path to a low-carbon economy, it is absolutely right that we also protect the consumer. Government support is designed to help technologies stand on their own two feet, not to encourage reliance on subsidies. This means moving from demand-led schemes to competition-led schemes. Ending support under the renewables obligation early for new onshore wind in Great Britain, with appropriate provision for grace periods, balances the interests of onshore wind developers with those of the wider public. This Government made a commitment to the electorate—no new subsidies for onshore wind, and giving local communities the final say on onshore wind farm applications—and the Government must deliver on this.
I have tabled government Amendments 78B, 78D to 78P, 78R and 82A, which seek to amend and supplement Clause 66 for debate at recommittal on 14 October. I withdrew the amendments to reflect on the points made in the debate, and committed to re-present them on Report today. I thank noble Lords for the useful discussion in last week’s debate. As promised, I have reflected on that discussion and incorporated a number of changes into the clauses that we will be debating today. It is right that we took the time to do that, and I hope that noble Lords will accept that I have listened and reacted.
The substance, however, must remain the same. We are not all going to agree on what is being proposed by these amendments, but they have been developed following extensive engagement with industry and I am confident that they strike the right balance. They provide a grace period to protect investor confidence while protecting the public interest. Early indication from industry is that it welcomes these amendments. Although there will always be projects that just miss out wherever we draw the line, it is clear that the Government have a mandate to act and that is exactly what we are doing.
Before moving on to the detail of these amendments, I shall address the future of contracts for difference, as raised by noble Lords at our last session. The Secretary of State has been clear that we will make an announcement in the autumn relating to the next allocation round for contracts for difference. That position is unchanged; it is as it was. I realise that this is an important issue for all, but I suggest that we have set out a very clear position. The clauses that I present to the House today clearly deliver on the Government’s commitment in relation to onshore wind while protecting investor confidence.
I shall address some of the points that were raised at recommittal stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and echoed by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. During that stage the noble and learned Lord raised a number of interesting points for discussion. I have responded to these in a formal letter to him, and will now respond to them in this forum for the benefit of all noble Lords.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, asked for further detail on our reasons for including the provision for appeals in our grace period criteria. We have included these projects because, had the correct planning permission decision been taken in the first place, they would have had planning permission by 18 June. Projects where planning permission was granted on appeal in the circumstances covered by the amendments will have established a legal right to planning permission on or before 18 June and therefore we are including these cases within the approved development grace period criteria. It seems to be the right thing to do.
In the recommittal debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about projects that achieve consent after 18 June, following a delay to the decision which exceeded the statutory timeframe. Unless the projects utilised their legal right to challenge the delivery of consent within the statutory timescales, such projects would not fall within the scope of the approved development condition.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also raised the question of amending the grace period criteria to either allow all projects that had applied for planning permission access to the grace period or to consider extending the cut-off date to 8 October—the date on which the Government first tabled the amendments setting out the criteria for the grace period. The government amendments set out the grace period as originally proposed, which would allow those projects which as of 18 June had planning permission, a grid connection and land rights to continue to accredit under the renewables obligation until the original closure date of 31 March 2017. That is a reasonable expectation for them to have, and we have responded to it. Planning permission rather than application has been chosen because the grant of planning permission represents a very significant point in the progression to accreditation under the RO.
The government amendments strike the right balance. They deliver on our manifesto commitment while also seeking to protect investor confidence and the interests of onshore wind developers. For this reason I question the changes proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. These changes would have a fundamental impact on our ability to deliver on the manifesto pledge and to manage our low-carbon spend. Based on the department’s analysis, allowing all projects with only a planning application in place could mean that anything up to 7.1 gigawatts could accredit under the renewables obligation. This figure represents all projects that had submitted an application but not yet received planning permission as at 18 June.
Furthermore, I also question moving the qualifying date from 18 June to 8 October 2015 as, similarly, this would also serve to potentially increase the number of projects eligible to accredit under the renewables obligation. This would mean that we would remain at risk of deploying beyond the 11 to 13 gigawatts of onshore wind that we project is needed to meet our 2020 targets and what we can afford under our low-carbon spending cap, as well as being inconsistent with our manifesto pledge. This could therefore potentially add more costs to consumer bills. The Government’s position is that projects must have had planning permission on or before 18 June in order to be eligible for the grace period. I hope that noble Lords can see that the line has been drawn here for a crucial reason.
Following questions raised in the recommittal debate I will also take the opportunity to discuss the position on variations. We are aware that projects that had planning permission on or before 18 June may subsequently need to vary that permission and that the Acts provide for this, for example under Sections 96A and 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or under Section 36C of the Electricity Act 1989. Where consent is granted for development on or before 18 June and is subsequently varied as provided for by statute, the development will continue to fall within the proposed development condition set out in Section 32LJ.
On projects where a radar objection has been withdrawn, we understand that there are projects in a number of differing scenarios. For example, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, stated, a project may have received objections to a planning application on matters such as radar. Where that project has managed to resolve the matter with the objector and subsequently has been granted planning permission on or before 18 June, it of course meets the criteria for the grace period provided that the other conditions are satisfied. If the resolution of those objections pushes the determination past 18 June, unfortunately it will not meet those criteria.
The grid and radar delay condition set out in the amendments maintains the intent of the original, existing grid and radar grace period, as set out in the Renewables Obligation Closure Order 2014. The intention is that projects which are delayed due to delays to work on radar stations or radar equipment, which are outside their control, should be eligible for the additional 12-month grace period.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, before the Minister leaves this point, could he tell us, first, what sums are involved in these investment problems at present, how many of them have been prejudiced and how much they were worth in the first place? Secondly, will he give us some idea of the global sums involved in the whole sorry procedure that we are having to go through?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, obviously much is dependent upon when the legislation goes through, and that is in the hands of this House and another place. Therefore, I think it is impossible to say with any certainty—or even to give an estimate—exactly how much is at stake. It relates to those projects that have already deployed, and so they are being given additional time to deploy. It is for individual projects that suffer from this investment freeze to come forward. We have done this in response to the engagement exercise. It will not deploy any more wind projects and it allows those projects that have deployed, following our proposals under the grace period, an added period within which to bring forward their projects and have the existing position.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I take it then that the Minister is unaware of the financial implications of what he is asking us to support this afternoon.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is not for me to determine whether the conditions are met. There is a process set out in relation to those projects that would be able to deploy and, if they have suffered a hiatus, for them to come forward with the claim in relation to how much it is. It is not going to cost any additional money, because it just gives them additional time in which to deploy. As I am coming to, it gives them approximately another nine months. It is not an additional amount of deployment; it is some projects that will deploy being allowed additional time to meet the conditions.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister out, if I may. We have had estimates from the independent renewable energy group to say that the projects that have fallen just the other side of this cut-off deadline that the Government have imposed have costs in the region of £350 million.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
With respect to the noble Baroness, this is not about those projects that fall just the other side of the line; this is about those projects that can satisfy the conditions being given additional time. This does not bring any more deployment in. That is a quite separate point, if I may say so.
Lord Hardie (CB)
I would like to ask the Minister about the extension of time. I fully understand and think it is fair that there has been an extension of time where planning permission is granted on appeal. However, did I understand the Minister to say that, where permission was refused on appeal, and if there were a judicial review that ultimately granted permission, that would be respected and it would be deemed to have been an appropriate permission? What concerns me is the timescale, if my understanding is correct. How many years down the line are we talking about beyond June 2015? Once we go down that line, for perhaps two years, that might have an impact on meeting the 2019 deadline.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very happy to respond to that point, but it is a quite separate point from the investment freezing condition, relating, as it does, to the appeals process. The point of the amendments that we are putting forward is to say that if a project should have been given planning permission on or before the cut-off date of 18 June, and the appeals process demonstrates that, whether by an appeal or judicial review, it is reasonable, rational and right that they should be allowed to accredit under these proposals, and that is what would happen. That was done in response to the engagement exercise that we have been through. We have tried to do what is right, in considering very reasonable points. I do not accept that this would drag on indefinitely: I do not think that the legal process is in a Jarndyce v Jarndyce situation. There will, of course, necessarily be some sort of delay, but that is how the judicial process will operate. It is absolutely right to have that provision in relation to the appeals procedure.
To return to the investment freezing condition, the extension available in the circumstances that I have outlined will be approximately nine months—broadly equivalent to the period between the date of the Secretary of State’s announcement and Royal Assent. To be eligible for this extra time, projects must be able to provide evidence that they have been impacted by a lack of investment during the period to Royal Assent.
This “investment freezing condition” has been designed specifically to protect the projects that were intended to be able to access the grace period as proposed on 18 June. It is not an extension of deployment, but an extension of the period for those that are able to deploy within the grace period. This condition is not about increasing the pipeline of onshore wind projects that are able to accredit under the renewables obligation.
Furthermore, as a result of the helpful discussion at recommittal, a drafting change has been made to the amendment. Your Lordships will have seen that in new Section 32LK(4)(a)—some of you may have picked this up—the phrase “as at May 2016” has been replaced by the phrase,
“as at the Royal Assent date”,
following representations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—representations that I think were entirely valid, and which have been echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. Similarly, in consequence, new Section 32LK(4)(b) now refers to,
“the date which is 28 days after the Royal Assent date”.
In addition, those provisions have been amended—again, following representations at recommittal—to make it clear that either uncertainty about whether the Bill will receive Royal Assent or uncertainty about the final wording of the Bill will be sufficient for the purposes of meeting the “investment freezing condition”. We have made it absolutely clear in the Bill that it is not necessary to show both. I am grateful to noble Lords for the helpful debate that we have had on these points. I believe that this revised drafting now makes our intent perfectly clear, and has improved the Bill.
In order to provide a consistent approach to all onshore wind projects eligible to accredit under the renewables obligation, we also ensure through these amendments that a pre-existing grid and radar delay grace period will apply here. This condition entitles projects affected by unforeseen grid and/or radar delays to an additional 12-month period in which to accredit. This amendment, too, has been redrafted to provide clarity about when a project may benefit from a grace period for grid and/or radar works delays. The provision is now clear that either grid delays or radar delays, or both, will be sufficient for these purposes. Again, I thank noble Lords for the useful discussion that led to this amendment.
I am confident in the amendments, and in the proposed grace period. I have listened to noble Lords, and I believe that I have responded positively on various issues. Again I thank them for their helpful suggestions which have been incorporated to improve the clarity of the clauses. We have listened actively to stakeholders and worked to ensure that the final policy strikes the right balance between the interests of onshore wind developers and those of the wider public. I hope that your Lordships will agree that these amendments should stand. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, will say something about Scotland when she comes to speak to her amendments. As I said in Committee, the onshore wind industry in Scotland directly employs 5,400 people and contributes £9 million per annum in community benefit. I think that the work which I would like to claim my noble friend Lord Stephen and I started when we were in the coalition Government in Edinburgh and which has been carried on by the present Scottish Administration, and the work done by previous Secretaries of State at DECC, has resulted in onshore wind power being an increasingly cheaper source of power. However, the position as I set out in Committee on the Scottish dimension was that if the Scottish Government choose to extend the period, as was first envisaged when it was agreed with them that the renewables obligation would end, that is something that they should be able to do.
On the grace periods, which were the substance of the Minister’s amendments, I first and foremost acknowledge his engagement both before last week’s recommittal and subsequently, in terms both of meetings and phone calls. It might also be fair to acknowledge his private office, because I received an email from it timed at 00:54 on Saturday morning, which is quite remarkable. I know from experience just how hard private offices work.
While I welcome some of the changes which the Minister has referred to, with regard to the investment freezing condition and to making it clear that it was grid or radar and not cumulative, that is as far as the Government have gone, and the rest of the government response has been more than a little disappointing.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Is the fact that the Minister, who is well respected in this House, has had to work so hard—his private office has to work past midnight—not illustrative of the chaotic way in which the Government as a whole have dealt with this Bill?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I think that everyone who has dealt with this Bill would agree that it has not been a satisfactory process. We have had late tabling of amendments; even the amendments before us were tabled only on Monday, meaning that if we wished to table amendments to amendments we were under considerable pressure to do so.
Perhaps I may put in context what we are discussing by drawing to the House’s attention what was said yesterday in the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change in the other place. My right honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Orkney and Shetland asked the noble Lord’s ministerial colleague, Andrea Leadsom, “So what is the purpose of the grace period, then?” To which she replied, “As I say, to ensure fairness—to ensure that those who have spent money in a significant investment and achieved everything technically to meet the cut-off date, but through reasons beyond their control have not actually made it, are not penalised for reasons beyond their control”. It is with these words in mind that we must examine the Government’s position and the amendments that have been put forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, an estimated £350 million has been put in to take forward projects which may not now proceed.
Our amendments relate in one respect to all applications which were in train at the time of the somewhat arbitrary date of 18 June—that was the date that the Secretary of State made a Statement; it has no more magic than that—and which had received planning committee approval. The reason for emphasising committee approval was that, in an earlier clause in the Bill, the Government set great store by the fact of local determination. A local determination means that, after considerable discussion, debate and consultation, the local planning committee has approved a particular proposal. It may just be that it is due to the cycle of planning meetings that the application has not yet gone to the full council for endorsement. I refer back to what the Minister, Ms Leadsom, said about applicants achieving everything technically to meet the cut-off date, but through reasons beyond their control, not actually making it. A lot of developers do not have control over the cycle of meetings of a local authority and it seems very unfair that, if they have passed muster after scrutiny by a planning committee, they fall foul because the full council has not ratified that decision.
Our Amendment 78RA contains a provision that it should refer to planning applications that were in place and had been accepted 16 or more weeks before 18 June. The reason for that is that after 16 weeks it is possible, if the local authority has not made a determination, for the developer to say that there has been a non-determination, so it is a deemed refusal and to appeal to Ministers on that basis. But the noble Lord and others who were at the Committee debate last week will remember that I gave an example from, I think, Tayside where extensive work had been done in terms of discussions between the developers, local communities and the planning authority to try to ensure that concerns had been meet and the opportunities to work with other environmental projects going on in the area were maximised. I believe, along with I am sure most Members of your Lordships’ House, that it is good practice for developers to work alongside the planning authority and try to get an agreement and outcome that is satisfactory to all. And yet, if the developer did that and missed the 18 June cut-off date, it will be penalised for it, whereas those about whom it might be said that they are not using best practice—I would not necessarily say that it was bad practice—might take a slightly legalistic view and say, “Well, it has been 16 weeks, so that is it. We are going to appeal because there has been a deemed refusal”. If that is subsequently granted on appeal, their applications will be satisfied. That does not appear to be a fair way of proceeding. If we are looking for an element of fairness in this, where is the fairness in penalising those who have demonstrated good practice?
Also with regard to Section 75 and Section 106, the Minister said in his letter to me that, where the planning committee could have been minded to approve on or before 18 June subject to Section 75 or Section 106 agreements but no formal consent was granted on or before 18 June, unfortunately, there is no legal consent given that they are minded to approve and we understand that the negotiations can be lengthy and not always successful. People from the industry who have been talking to me find that an unduly legalistic approach. The industry has been working with planning authorities for some 10 years on the Section 75 or Section 106 agreements that emerge in these situations. By and large they are already negotiated, but it may take time to put in place some of the detailed provisions. For example, if it is part of the development that there has to be a new habitat on neighbouring land—not the land on which the development is to take place—it has to be shown that the developer has the right to undertake the building of the habitat on that land. That is part and parcel of what happens and it is both practical and common sense that it should be recognised. Again, reminding us of what the Minister’s colleague said, it is to ensure fairness so that people are not penalised for reasons that are beyond their control.
Perhaps I may also take up what the Minister said on the question of variations. He helpfully stated in his letter to me and then repeated it in the House just a moment ago that, where consent is granted for a development on or before 18 June and is subsequently varied in this way, it will continue to fall within the approved building condition in proposed new Section 32LJ. I raise this because it is helpful that the Minister has now put this on the record, but I have also had representations from those who have taken legal advice that they do not necessarily believe that it does what the Minister says. I would ask him to look at it again. The fact that we have something that could be referred to in a Pepper v Hart way is helpful, but some would find greater reassurance, and it would be clearer to me, if there is something on the face of the Bill.
I refer to Amendments 78RA and 78RB with regard to Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The purpose and effect of these amendments is to address what we believe is an anomaly by applying the principle of proposed new Section 32LJ(4)(b) to an analogous position under the Section 36 regime. Under Section 36 of the 1989 Act, the relevant planning authority is not the decision taker, but it can object to the proposal, after which there must be a public inquiry and then a decision by the Secretary of State. That is closely analogous to refusal under local planning followed by an appeal, and indeed for around half of the affected projects DECC’s renewable energy planning database describes the projects as being at appeal. Indeed, the last time that the people briefing me looked at the DECC website they were described as being at appeal. However, the proposed provisions cover the local planning version of this process but not the Section 36 version. This means that small extensions of larger sites, which have to follow the Section 36 route, are going to be treated less favourably under these grace period provisions than some sub-50 megawatt, stand-alone developments which go ahead under the local planning process. Reverting back to the question of fairness, there should be consistency in the Government’s approach. This amendment seeks to ensure that, and I hope the Minister will think again on it.
I also draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that, because of the Planning Act 2008, which has superseded Section 36 in England and Wales, that section mainly affects plants in Scotland. The functions of the Secretary of State under Section 36 and Schedule 8 are transferred to Scottish Ministers under Article 2 of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, so far as they are exercisable in or as regards Scotland. Accordingly, the amendment does not explicitly refer to devolved Ministers. Would the Minister look and see if it is the case that they are not covered? I am sure he would not wish to put Scottish developers in any less favourable position than those in England and Wales.
We have proposed a relatively simple amendment regarding grid works, with a different cut-off date for grid works agreements. In Committee and subsequently, I raised with the Minister a case involving a joint venture between an energy company and a private individual. The energy company carried on the transmission entry capacity for a substation but the joint venture finished and the private individual carried on himself. Transmission entry capacity has therefore been lost and has to be reapplied for. It has had that connection for five years in the past but, crucially, did not have it on 18 June. It seems very unfair that they should lose out in a very bureaucratic process. We tried to find a way to capture that in an amendment and we thought we would do this by putting in a different end date, because you cannot just conjure up a grid connection agreement. It would not have taken any more capacity than was already the case, but this might give some clarity.
In another circumstance which has been drawn to my attention, changes were made. Grid capacity that was for one developer was then to be shared and this required a new agreement to be made. There was a clerical error and the developer sent the agreement back to get this sorted. Unfortunately, it was sent just before 18 June and did not come back until after that date. It would be reassuring to know whether that counts as a variation or whether it could be addressed by extending the period for grid connection.
In the recommittal, I made a point about radar and the problem developers are finding with the length of time it is taking the Ministry of Defence to process applications. The grace period that has been given may, therefore, not be effective because of the time it takes to get agreements reached. One developer who has made representations has said, about a particular mitigation which the MoD is looking for: “There are no guarantees that the work programme will deliver mitigation at this stage. In any event, the current MoD position is that the first part of the variation condition allowing development to commence cannot be discharged before 2018. There are some ongoing discussions between onshore developers and the MoD, seeking to find ways of earlier condition discharge but this is proving problematic. Overall, the costs and timescales of this ATC radar mitigation programme do not fit with any of the onshore projects”. It would be perverse if delay on the part of the Ministry of Defence meant that the grace period which the Government have sought to give does not actually cover these circumstances. This is why we have put in a particular date, though it may be that March 2018 is too early. I hope the Minister will take that serious point about trying to get agreements out of the Ministry of Defence if he wishes to give substance to what he sought to do with the radar works part of his amendment.
I am sorry to take up time but I had a lot of important points. I hope that the Government will move. I do not believe that they have met the letter or the spirit of what Andrea Leadsom said yesterday to the Select Committee in the other place.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I did not speak in Committee, although I attended it, partly because I found almost a sense of the ground moving under my feet as all the amendments were produced. This, of course, was a recommittal in Committee under these clauses. At the end of the debate, the clauses were removed. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who referred to “liquid legislation”. There is a phenomenon emerging in the Church of England called “liquid worship”. I can only say that when I am told that that is what I am to expect on a Sunday when I go to a parish, my heart does not leap with joy at what might be in prospect for me.
In Committee, I began by thinking that the Government had done a deal with the industry through withdrawing the clauses and bringing them back in the recommitted meeting of the Grand Committee. But then I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. If Members of the House think that we have just heard a tour de force, they were not there in Committee, which saw an even greater tour de force, complemented in a different style by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
The noble Lord refers to the need to “draw a line”. He mentioned that phrase five or six times in his contribution. The problem is that the line was drawn at March 2017. It is a redrawing of the line by the Government which has put us into this situation and raised the question of how one does it in a way that is reasonably fair all round given the complexities of the planning process, which have been so well described.
At this stage, I simply ask: what are the real benefits of this liquid legislation, which may prove to be even more liquid in the coming weeks and months? What savings will be made by trying to redraw the line from March 2017 to a date somewhat in advance of that? As I understand it, it is a somewhat moving and shifting date. What is the game worth? Given the vast subsidies that are to be paid out over coming years for wind turbines, what will the savings be in comparison with those subsidies that are being paid out?
I must emphasise that I speak as someone who has been critical of that subsidy regime from the beginning. As some noble Lords will know, I was a founding trustee with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which seeks to scrutinise policy from that perspective. I sometimes say that my real title here is that I am chaplain to HMS “Lawson”, although I do not speak with the authority of the captain. I would be interested to know what the anticipated saving is and whether the game is really worth the candle, given the complexity that has emerged.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I had not thought that what we were dealing with was liquid legislation. I thought we were dealing with piecemeal transitional arrangements dreamt up on the hoof as we go through the process. But I am quite prepared for the right reverend Prelate to give us this liquid legislation definition in perpetuity. It is a rather splendid phrase.
This has been a really unsatisfactory Bill and we must not allow ourselves to see this as an argument about onshore subsidy protectionism. It is not about that at all. I think that everybody in the House recognises that the period of subsidy for onshore wind may well come to an end at some point in the nearish future. It is much more about what it is that we want to try to do to send signals about our climate change intentions and to adhere to our own regulatory principles. I have been a regulator three times on behalf of the Government and on each occasion I have absolutely worked my socks off to make sure that we are as fair as possible to British industry. Fairness means giving clarity of policy and adequate times for industry to adjust, meaning that companies are not caught with their foot on the wrong side of a piece of change and penalised as a result of their previously sensible decisions in line with what previously had been government policy. Even with the very welcome changes to the grace periods that the Minister has laid before us, we are still not there.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about the statement made yesterday by the Energy Minister in another place. I was a bit distressed to hear the Minister here say that we have made lots of concessions and we now have enough renewable energy from onshore wind in the pipeline. I do not think that that is the point. The point is, have we dealt fairly with British industry and given anybody who could reasonably consider themselves not to have been fairly dealt with the benefit of the doubt in this circumstance, where, all of a sudden, policy has shifted? The Minister said that there had been extensive consultation with the companies and stakeholders, yet many noble Lords will have been lobbied and briefed by players in the energy business, who, even this morning, have been listing a series of situations where, through no fault of their own, they continue to be penalised by the graceperiod arrangements.
I simply ask the Minister to consider some of the circumstances that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, aptly summarised in such an eloquent fashion to ensure that the statement made by the Energy Minister yesterday about fairness is adhered to and that we do not continue to see liquid legislation that is simply piecemeal, illogical and very damaging, both to our climate change image in the world and the image in terms of British industry about whether reliable frameworks in which companies can realistically work will continue to come from this Government.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene at this stage, but the right reverend Prelate’s intervention and his association with my noble friend Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation prompted me to pursue the point that he raised. A lot of our discussion has been on the penalties —in other words, the removal of subsidies from people who thought that they had a chance of the subsidy when they started their projects. That is aside from whether the project is environmentally okay or whether they get local government approval for planning reasons and so on; it is simply the question of whether they were caught by various delays and, therefore, would not get the subsidies that they thought they would get when they set out.
We are not in any way trying to stop the development of the very successful parts of the onshore windfarm industry. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, reminded us, electricity from wind power is getting cheaper. If it is getting cheaper, it will in due course need less subsidy. Remarks from outside this country—particularly an ill-informed remark by the UN adviser, Professor McGlade, that somehow Britain was putting a stop to its movements towards low-carbonisation by putting a stopper on all wind power and so on—are way out of kilter and far from representing where we stand.
It is no less interesting to work out to what extent these grace periods will help the situation—I thoroughly approve of all the amendments that my noble friend has brought forward with such assiduity. Presumably, as a result of these grace periods, we will see slightly more subsidy paid out, which has to come from the consumer—the industrial consumer in particular—than we would have done before he introduced the amendments. The money that was not going to come from somewhere has to come from somewhere. Somebody will have to pay for it. This is on a day when we are staggering under the colossal redundancies that have been announced throughout the steel industry—including the steel industry in Scotland—which, we are told, are overwhelmingly the result of very high energy costs. Apparently, for electricity, we are paying twice the German level. In turn, of course, energy costs for the steel industry of Europe are leading people to predict that the entire industry will be wiped out. At a time like this, we need to watch with needle sharpness what is happening to the costs that are falling on the industries where all these jobs are being destroyed. How much more of that cost is still going to persist in meeting all the grace period conditions which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, with his massive legal knowledge and detailed grasp of the situation, has described as being necessary and fair? How much more will this kind of fairness cost in the end in burdens on the electricity users of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in ways which will precipitate even further these appalling redundancies? We need to keep that side of the argument very clearly in our minds.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the government amendments. I will speak to those and also to Amendment 78C in my name, and in support of the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace.
As we enter the second day of Report, I do not feel that the Bill has been well handled, as has already been referenced. This may stem from the fact that the Bill was not ready when it was presented to us. Significant areas of policy were still being developed. It was a very fluid situation. In fact, the term “liquid legislation” will probably stay with us for many years to come. It was coined by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in the recommital stage of Committee and describes very accurately how we have been dealing with a set of moving parts as we have gone through the Bill. Here we are on Report, but it still feels very much like a Committee stage, and that is regrettable. We should not be in this situation where we have so many controversial issues still unresolved.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, I have pressed the Minister to give me a justification and a sound argument why the Government have chosen the route that they have in this Energy Bill of introducing what is now Clause 66 regarding the early closure of a renewables support scheme that was already closing 12 months early—and, in fact, not closing it to everybody but just to one subsection of technology: onshore wind. Why do we find ourselves in a place where the Government appear to have singled out for special treatment a single technology from all the low-carbon technologies available to us, and where that special treatment is so damaging and corrosive to investor confidence? I am afraid that I have not received a suitable answer to that question throughout the passage of the Bill. Now the answer given boils down to a very few words that appeared in the Tory Party manifesto, that the Conservative Party would put an end to—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way at that point, which is a very material point. The measure was in a manifesto which was taken to the country and a Conservative Government were elected in May. As the noble Baroness will know, the Salisbury convention has previously indicated that what is in a manifesto is allowed passage through the House of Lords. I value the House of Lords and its traditions and I fear that if we refer in a rather dismissive way to something that was in a party’s manifesto as somehow not being important, in the way that she did, that is a very serious pivotal moment for the House of Lords. I hope that she will consider that.
Baroness Worthington
I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. Of course I am aware of the Salisbury convention, but in this case we have a very ambiguous set of words which I am sure were thought about with care but certainly were not consulted on and no detail was applied. We are referring to a very short sentence. There are great ambiguities here. The actual phrase is,
“we will end any new public subsidy”,
for onshore wind. The word “public” is interesting because, strictly speaking, the payments come out of bills, not from the public purse. The word “new” is very interesting and open to very great interpretation. This was an existing support scheme and one that was already closing, and one on which, during the passage of the Energy Act 2013, in which I took part, there was a huge amount of consensus built, as well as engagement with industry, proper consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny to arrive at a suitable arrangement for winding-up the RO. That took many weeks and months of deliberation, and arrived at a line being drawn. The Government say that they need to draw the line somewhere. Actually, that line was drawn. It has now been moved and the process by which it was moved did not pay enough tribute to or treat with enough respect the investors in British industry whose confidence this is now undermining. It is for that reason that I do not interpret the Salisbury convention as applying to Clause 66.
We can have that debate when we come to the next amendment because although in this group we are discussing the amendments on the grace periods, when it comes to the next amendment we reserve the right to vote to delete this clause from the legislation for the reasons that I have begun to outline. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have not received an adequate explanation of why this particularly damaging clause has been introduced by the Government in the way that it has, with such little attention to detail and so little public consultation on the implications.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I endorse what my noble friend has said. She is absolutely right. When we come to the next amendment, which she is going to move, I will make it absolutely clear, in endorsing my noble friend, that we have been misled by the Government in relation to the manifesto and the interpretation of the manifesto. The Minister is shaking his head but my noble friend is absolutely right and I will underline that in more detail when we get to the next amendment.
Baroness Worthington
I am grateful to my noble friend for his support. The concerns that I have raised consistently throughout the passage of the Bill relate to the Government’s analysis which concludes that we simply do not need any more onshore wind. This is based on false projections of how we are doing in relation to our legally binding EU renewable energy targets. Those targets relate to power, heat and transport. It is true that we are doing reasonably well on power but we are not on track for delivery of our targets on transport or heat. The projections that the department is now having to produce to pretend that it will get to those targets stretch credibility. There is a hockey stick of deployment expected in the other two sectors which is simply not credible. We are tying our hands behind our back, removing from our low-carbon armoury one of the cheapest, safest and most easily deliverable technologies—onshore wind.
I almost feel that I ought to be presenting a eulogy for the wind industry in the UK because it deserves respect. It has a 25-year history. The House almost certainly knows that it was first supported by Margaret Thatcher in 1990. The first support mechanisms were brought in for wind around that time. She recognised the science of climate change and she knew that we needed to address it. She also knew that it would be sensible for the UK to make the most use of its assets. We happen to be one of the windiest countries in Europe, something we should celebrate. In fact, we have been one of the best markets for wind technologies. Our shores have seen innovations and the development of new technologies that we can be very proud of. We have seen investment in jobs and infrastructure, particularly in those parts of the country that need inward investment—I am referring to Scotland and Wales—a great pouring-in of interest and money that has helped to generate jobs at a time when they are sorely needed.
I am not saying that wind farms need to be put everywhere and that everyone should accept them. I actually think that the Government’s other manifesto commitment that local people should have a say in them is a sensible measure. That is something that the Government have sought to introduce through planning. The closure of the support mechanism has to be taken in the context of the other things the Government have done to stop onshore wind, including quite significant changes to planning.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
Before the noble Baroness gets to the end of her eulogy for the wind industry, will she confirm that this is the new Corbyn Labour Party’s policy—to eulogise an industry that is particularly good at rewarding rich people, including landowners, by loading the bills that hurt poor people most?
Baroness Worthington
We can debate who benefits most from our low-carbon agenda—possibly it is the Chinese at this particular juncture. However, in the context of closing the RO early, it is some of the smaller schemes—the independent developers and the independent renewable companies—that are suffering the most, and it is the larger companies that seem to be getting the grace period amendments that they need. It is the smaller guys who are losing out. This is not about rewarding the richest or the most powerful lobbyists—that is not what we are seeking to do.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, this is about fairness and a common-sense test of whether, when you read those words in a manifesto in May, you then think, “Ah yes, I know what that means; it means that in about the middle of June, I will see an announcement from the Government that closes a scheme in which I have invested hundreds of millions of pounds, which is already closing with no consultation”. I hesitate to say that that passes the common-sense test, as I do not think it does. Indeed, we know it does not, because we have had a large number of investors come to us to say that this is not the way that they should be dealt with.
Normally, a consultation exercise is undertaken and then the results of that consultation are published. In this case, because we have been racing since 18 June to get everything ready in order to close the scheme early, even though it is closing anyway, we have not had a proper public consultation or publication of the results of any consultation. Therefore we are flying blind and having to work with large numbers of people contacting us to express their concern and dismay at being handled in this way by the Government.
The specific issue raised under Amendment 78C is another important one. As I have said before, I do not think this House will discuss this, but it will certainly be discussed, with far greater passion potentially, when it moves to the other place. Amendment 78C would simply repatriate the closure of the RO to Scottish Ministers. The reason for this is that during the passage of the Energy Bill in 2013, the Government had to take a power to repatriate the renewables obligation back to Westminster. We were told at the time that this would be a technical amendment and that this had to be done simply to make the closure easier, tidier and more efficient. However, we now see that this was not the case: this was a cynical move that gave the Government the power to close a scheme for Scotland without due consultation with Scottish interests. It flies against the spirit of the Smith commission agreement, which is seeking to repatriate more powers to Scotland and allow Scottish people to determine what they want to see built to provide them with clean energy in the future.
That brings me on to the question of fairness and whether the Government’s amendments, and their proposals for grace periods, are fit for purpose. It should be noted that although the announcement was made on 18 June—and a very hard guillotine introduced at that point—and some details were provided about potential grace periods, it was not until 8 October that we were given the full detail of the proposals. That is not a long period for us to consider them, and they are incredibly complex—I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his forensic and expert deconstruction of some of these issues. It is not appropriate for us to have to wait four months before we see the detail and, when we do see it, for it to be so substandard. This is a cause of great concern. It was of course quite a heated debate in Committee in the Moses Room the other week. That resulted in the withdrawal of the amendments, for which we were grateful. We hoped then that that would result in a bit of reflection and some clearer amendments coming forward.
I am grateful to the Minister for presenting the changes that were incorporated. By and large they were merely technical issues of clarification, but the biggest one, about planning and when you deem planning consent to have been given, remains unresolved. This is what is so strange about these grace periods. The anomaly here could not be more strange: because of the way the Government are interpreting this and putting it into legislation, if you are refused planning permission—if the local council signals that it is not content—and you then appeal and win that appeal, you will be able to get a subsidy. However, if you had consent from the local committee and it was clear that the community wished to see the development, but you were waiting for various formalities to be concluded which then came after the artificial 18 June deadline, you would not be eligible. That seems to fly in the face of the Government’s manifesto commitment—they are evidently keen on their manifesto commitments, as I am sure is right and proper—which is that they want local people to have the final say. There are clearly still weaknesses and great anomalies within the grace periods. The provisions already run to many pages, but we still need the department to go back to think again and come forward with something workable.
I do not want anything that I have said today to be interpreted as our desire to see endless subsidies for particular technologies continuing indefinitely. That is absolutely not the case. As I have said on previous occasions, the issue we should look at on which the Government have refused to give any clarity is what is happening with the new form of support, the contracts for difference, which replace the RO. That is the pertinent question, but whenever I have asked it, I am told that the Government will make a Statement in the autumn. It is not a good answer for an industry with 25 long years of history to be proud of to be told, “We will tell you your fate in our own good time at some point”—presumably, after the Bill has passed its crucial stages. It is not appropriate to be closing one scheme and not giving any clarity over what is to replace it.
My final concern is that the Government have left us little choice but to object to the provision. It demonstrates a Government who put ideology ahead of evidence. There is no place for ideology in energy policy. If the Government have set their mind against onshore wind, as they are demonstrating—that is evident from all that they have done—they are no better than those who take an ideological principle against fracking or nuclear. We should not be singling out technologies; we need every technology to play its part. Some technologies are better than others in certain circumstances, but there is no reason to decide that we should cease to support one over another, especially when it turns out to be cheaper than many of the alternatives, has a proven track record of delivery and is sustaining investment in our country.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I doubt that he will be able to reassure me on those points, and it is for that reason that I reserve the right to press the amendment that follows.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, a rare moment of agreement: I suspect that I will not be able to satisfy the noble Baroness with the points that I am about to make. Nevertheless, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this part of the debate on the Bill.
Perhaps I may deal first with the Scottish issue, as it were—the amendment relating to Scotland, which I think only the noble Baroness spoke to. We are keen to do what is fair for Scotland—but no more, no less. That is a fair position. I reassure noble Lords that we are committed to implementing the recommendations of the Smith agreement and are doing so through the Scotland Bill. As agreed during the drafting of that Bill, the Government have and will continue to engage with the Scottish Government, as we do on a regular basis on energy issues, in line with the spirit of the Smith agreement, on all changes to the renewables obligation. That does not mean that we will agree; often we will not, sometimes we will. However, transferring legal authority to close the renewables obligation in Scotland to Scottish Ministers goes considerably further than Smith. That is nothing to do with the spirit of Smith; it is to do with the letter of Smith. As I see it, there was no suggestion that that should happen, but that debate—if there is a debate to be had—can no doubt happen on the Scotland Bill.
I turn to the issues raised other than the specific point on Scotland. As noble Lords have kindly acknowledged, I have sought to move on some of the issues. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for what he said—particularly in relation to my office. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that my office often works those late hours, even when it is not dealing with the Energy Bill, as my staff will gladly tell you. I am very grateful for the massive efforts that they have made on the Bill and many other matters.
There seem to be two key differences between those on the Government and Opposition Benches. One is about subsidy. I noted what the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said about not believing in subsidy, but this is about subsidy. If she has not got that attachment to subsidy, that is the essence of this debate. It took considerable chutzpah to attack us for ideology on the Government’s energy policy. Her leader is against new nuclear and, I believe, against fracking.
Baroness Worthington
I do not wish the debate to descend into party politics, but since the Minister has raised it, it may well be the case that our leader is personally anti-nuclear and anti-fracking, but that does not mean that that is translated into a change in the position of our shadow DECC team. It would probably be sensible to discuss this with my honourable friend in the other place, Lisa Nandy, who is now the shadow Secretary of State and consult her on these matters. Jeremy’s style of leadership is not that he would impose that on departments.
It is ideological to single out a single technology on no evidence and treat it in the way that the Government are doing. I remind the Minister that being in government is not the same as being a political party and that drafting manifestos is very different from drafting the law of the land.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I note what the noble Baroness says, but this comes back to leadership. If its leader has materially different views, it would be good to know the Labour Party position on those issues. On ideology, I reassure her that we are not against wind. We have wind deployed offshore, and I hope we will continue to have wind deployed onshore. It will just be without subsidy. That is rather different from saying “No new nuclear” and “No fracking”. It is saying “No subsidy”, which is very different.
Baroness Worthington
Perhaps the Minister can clarify something that appears in the Conservative Party manifesto: that there will be new nuclear without subsidy. Does that mean that contracts for difference are not subsidy, in which case contracts for difference can presumably be applied to onshore wind?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I have made the position on contracts for difference very clear, as I think the noble Baroness appreciates. We will set out the position on contracts for difference this autumn, not at an unspecified date in the future as she suggested in her contribution. That is not long to wait. We are in the autumn now, so I hope that she accepts that an announcement on that will be forthcoming shortly.
I do not want to go over old ground again. We have a cut-off date. I accept that cut-off dates are arbitrary. In Committee on recommital and today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, made telling contributions, but he suggested that we were taking a legalistic approach to this. It is likely that we will. As he will appreciate, this is legislation. We want it to be certain and for businesses and others to know where we are on this. I accept that dates will be arbitrary, but we have selected a date. Noble Lords have been indicating that they want certainty. We are delivering certainty. We have a basic difference of opinion on these issues. I do not think it is capable of resolution, as it was on the Oil and Gas Authority where we had a basic unity of view. We have a different view on onshore wind. We believe that the Salisbury convention applies here. I disagree with the suggestion that there is something ambiguous about the position in the manifesto. It was made very clear and nobody should have been taken by surprise by this, so I differ materially from what I am sure is the opinion honestly held by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but I cannot see that we can resolve some of these issues because of the basic difference between us.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I realise that this is Report, but I would like to press the question I put in my intervention. When all is done and dusted—leaving aside the allegations of ideology on all sides—in relation to all the subsidies that are likely to be paid out for wind turbines in the next 25 years, what proportion of that will be saved by this activity?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I do not know the proportion, but I know that the upper end of the limit is £270 million over the period. That might seem like a small amount, but it is not a small amount to me and I am not sure it would be to anyone else. We have this basic difference, and with that I oppose these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
First, I did not raise the issue of the definition of the recognised lenders because the noble Lord did not deal with it when he moved his own amendment. Did he give a commitment to go away and come back with a better definition that included, for example, organisations such as the Green Investment Bank? My second point, although there are many others that I could make, is this: does he accept that with regard to radar issues, what the Government give the Government might also take away? Will he undertake to talk to the Ministry of Defence to see if it can ensure that whatever provision is made by this grace period for radar is not actually defeated by the tardiness of the MoD?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, on his last point first, I am very happy to speak to the MoD in the way that the noble and learned Lord suggests. On the former of the two points that he raised relating to the recognised lenders, I have indicated that we will look at this issue. I have not made any commitment about what the result of looking at it will be but I recognise, based on information given by the noble and learned Lord and others, that there is a case to look at it. I hope that is helpful.
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to electricity generated in the circumstances set out in any one or more of sections 32LD to 32LL.”
Baroness Worthington
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am sure that people will be very pleased to hear that I do not intend to repeat the speech that I made in the previous debate. As noble Lords will be aware, we have tabled an amendment to delete Clause 66 from the Bill. The reason for this is that we do not believe this legislation is ready or has had the right consultation applied to it to ensure that it is fair. We do not find it satisfactory to be told that we will hear about the replacement mechanism in the autumn; it is the autumn now, and in the course of the Bill we should have information about what the Government are planning. As I have said, we have detailed concerns about the grace period.
I want to pick up on the issue of costs, which has been raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and the noble Lord, Lord Howell. To be clear, in the Government’s impact assessment the overall estimation of what the measure will save is 30p for a household for a year. The sum that the Minister was kind enough to present us with was £270 million overall, which is a tiny proportion of the amount of money that we are going to have to spend to decarbonise and renew our energy system. It is certainly less than the £350 million in capital that has been sunk into projects that are now falling foul of the artificial grace period. Overall, then, Clause 66 does not deliver a great deal of value to the country as a whole—certainly not to the wind industry, but it does not serve UK plc’s purposes either.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the steel industry, I completely accept that the situation is now very grave. The answer to the steel problem is about enabling it to invest in new, cleaner infrastructure. Not only is there a vast global oversupply of steel but we ourselves also have an ageing and inefficient infrastructure. We need reinvestment, and I believe that the way to do that is by helping the industry to invest in green infrastructure and carbon capture and storage. It will actually be through more green measures, not fewer, that we save ourselves. The steel industry’s electricity bills are a tiny proportion compared with its process emissions; in fact, it is true to say that for nearly all the green measures that apply to electricity the steel industry receives compensation. Please let no one be under any illusion that anything we are doing today will help to bring about the demise of the steel industry—far from it.
Viscount Ridley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene again. She and I have had an exchange on Twitter about this and now I am bringing it forward to this House. Is she aware of the comments made in July this year by Karl-Ulrich Köhler, the European head of Tata Steel, when commenting on European green emissions policies? He said,
“it is very difficult for the colleagues”,
in India,
“to understand why Europe’s politicians undermine the competitiveness of their steelmakers”.
Baroness Worthington
I sometimes also wonder about the European policy and in particular why we have not moved further and faster on carbon capture and storage. It makes sense to me that that should be the technology that will enable us to have steel and still meet our climate change targets. As with many things in Europe, it all boils down to what Germany thinks, and unfortunately, Germany has set its mind against carbon capture and storage. We do not need to, thankfully, and we should press ahead.
To return to another form of low-carbon energy which has an important role to play—onshore wind—I have made it quite clear that I do not believe that this is good legislation, and I have not been reassured why it is being pursued other than it seems to be quite a political move by the Government. The costs certainly should not be a reason for us to consider that this should be brought through. As regards meeting the EU targets, it is simply not true that there is no more room for onshore wind and that we should be throttling back.
We have greatly destabilised investment in the UK, which used to be one of the leading destinations for investment. The hasty, rash and poorly thought-through policies of this Government in their early months in government have produced shock waves. Many other people are also saying this, such as John Cridland at the CBI, and the Government’s funder, Dennis Clark, has sounded an alarm that the Government’s policy now appears to be having very little positive effect and a great deal of negative effect on investor confidence.
For all those reasons and for the reasons I have outlined with regard to it being inappropriate to proceed with this poor legislation, I suggest that we delete it, give the Government more time to consider this in the other place, where I am sure the debate will continue. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I have been wondering during the entire consideration of this debate why there has been such undue haste. This is a very important technical measure, yet great suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and others that we might have pre-legislative scrutiny and bring some experts together to look at aspects of it have all been cast aside. This is being rushed and pushed through because of some ideological desire which the party opposite seems to have.
The Minister mentioned the manifesto again and again in his speech. I notice, because I was just checking earlier on, that Norman Smith of the BBC has been saying that this is another area where the Lords might challenge the Government on something in their manifesto, and the Salisbury convention is being held up and waved at us.
I therefore took the elementary step of going back, as my noble friend did and mentioned earlier, to what is included in the Conservative manifesto. Do all noble Lords opposite know exactly what was included? I wonder if they really do. It said:
“Onshore wind … makes a meaningful contribution to our energy mix and has been part of the necessary increase in renewable capacity”.
That is a very positive statement. It continues:
“Onshore windfarms often fail to win public support, however”—
well, if they do not get public support, and are not supported by the local planning authority, they do not go ahead—
“and are unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energy system requires”.
No one is suggesting that “by themselves” they provide a firm capacity for a stable energy system—they contribute towards a diverse energy capacity. It goes on:
“As a result, we will end any new public subsidy for them”—
as my noble friend said—
“and change the law so that local people have the final say on windfarm applications”,
which I agree with. But is it a new public subsidy? I argue that it is not. It is a public subsidy which we all knew about and which the investors understood was going to continue until the end of October 2017. It is not new. Presumably it was budgeted for by the right honourable Chancellor of the Exchequer. Presumably it was all taken account of in the department’s budget and the department knew that it was happening, so it is not a new public subsidy. The Conservative manifesto is quite clear and our amendment to remove Clause 66 does not in any way go against it.
Lord Spicer (Con)
Does the noble Lord at least accept that because wind is unreliable, you have to double up in the entire system. That is the whole point about wind power—you have to double up in the system in order to have it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No. If we have a diverse energy supply, with nuclear, wind and a whole range of other ways of producing our electricity, we do not need to double up. When the wind is blowing, we take advantage of that; when it is not blowing, we do not need to take advantage of it. However, that is part of a much wider discussion. I am saying that the amendment does not in any way go against the Conservative manifesto.
In the House of Commons, a few Tory Back-Benchers got really agitated about wind farms, for one reason or another, and in the last Parliament a Private Member’s Bill was introduced to abolish subsidies for wind farms in England and Wales only. Yet we are talking about abolishing subsidies for the whole of the United Kingdom when two-thirds of the proposed wind farms are in Scotland. As my noble friend on the Front Bench said earlier, Scotland is going to suffer immeasurably and disproportionately from what this Government are proposing. The Minister said that he listened to the devolved Administrations. Yes, he listened to them but he paid no attention to what they said; he did the opposite of what they said. That may be listening but it is not acting on what was said.
In an earlier intervention, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said that this is all going to help the big landowners. I know that he speaks on behalf of the big landowners. Of course, if you want to deal with land ownership, that is another matter. I would support a major change in land ownership, and indeed that is being proposed in Scotland, although, as far as I am concerned, it does not go far enough. I would support such a change so that big landowners did not benefit from this. However, as my noble friend said, some of the schemes in Scotland, such as the one that we have had representations about from Skye, do not involve big landowners; there are community schemes that are also very important.
I hope that this House will exercise its judgment in relation to this matter by removing Clause 66 and, quoting from a well-known Scottish anthem, sending the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and his Government “homeward tae think again”. I hope that on Report or in the House of Commons they come up with something that takes account not of their political dogma but of the real needs and the real situation in the country.
Viscount Ridley
My Lords, in declaring my interests at the start, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that my family benefits from one wind turbine but that I give the money away to charity. I thought that he might like to know that.
This is a manifesto commitment and I have never heard such extraordinary legal sophistry from the Opposition on this question. Under the “Foulkes convention”, as we may have to call it, at the next election we will have to have a negotiation between lawyers representing both parties to get the exact wording of manifestos agreed or nothing will be able to get through the House of Lords. That is essentially what is being argued. It is a perfectly common-sense statement that was in the manifesto and we are committing to it—and we are facing a potential constitutional crisis in the way that the Opposition are treating the Salisbury convention.
It is an astonishing suggestion to hear that reducing a subsidy to an industry is an ideological objection to that industry. My objection to the wind industry is not ideological: it is economic and scientific. Wind is making a trivial contribution to our energy supplies—it supplied 4% of our total energy use last year—and an even smaller contribution to carbon dioxide reductions. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, responded to my question about how much carbon dioxide emissions have actually been reduced by the wind power industry by very kindly sending me a link to a calculation that 1,800 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions are displaced or reduced by each 2 megawatt wind turbine. Well, do the maths on that. That means that with 10,000 turbines of roughly that size in this country, 20 million tonnes or so would be reduced. But that is out of 700 million tonnes of emissions, so it is a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of less than 3%—and that assumes that it is displacing grid average emissions, which it is not: it is mostly displacing gas. Nor does it take into account the intermittency or back-up—the point made by my noble friend Lord Spicer—which means that our total wind fleet that we have built up over 25 years, hugely subsidised, is giving us a reduction in emissions of about 2%. That is lost in the statistics. It is an Asterix—sorry, I mean an asterisk—and it comes at a huge cost. Wind subsidies cost this country about £4 billion a year. For that money, one could buy an extra 25% of electricity at the wholesale price, which is an enormous amount.
As I said earlier, in subsidising wind farms we are robbing the poor to pay the rich. It is a regressive subsidy. It hits poor people harder than rich people and rewards rich people more than poor people—not just landowners, but investors of other kinds. We are also killing jobs. We know that the high cost of electricity has killed a number of energy-intensive industries: for example, the aluminium smelter at Lynemouth, in Northumberland, to which I drew attention a number of years ago in this House.
Baroness Worthington
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. He makes a lovely speech, but actually we are debating the impacts of Clause 66, which, as I have pointed out, saves 30p on a household’s bill. We can have a lovely debate about the role of CFDs and replacement subsidies, but we are here, on Report, looking at Clause 66, which is a very specific intervention that has destabilised investor confidence.
Viscount Ridley
I do not know where I was five or 10 minutes ago then, when I was listening to a lot of very wide-ranging remarks about whether our opposition to the wind industry was ideological.
I find it odd that the parties opposite are so keen to defend one particular industry—one that is really good at taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people while doing the square root of nothing to reduce emissions, killing eagles, hurting tourism, spoiling landscapes and killing jobs.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
The noble Lord is probably going to move on to it being conducive to falling arches and making children more delinquent. We are talking about correcting an administrative lash-up. Yesterday, I looked briefly at the words that the Government put forth on the consultation on the renewables obligation cessation and the transfer to contracts for difference. That was aimed at making a smooth, seam-free transition between the two subsidy schemes. What we are talking about here is the fact that the transition that came as a result of earlier closure is far from seam-free and smooth; that is all that we are talking about.
On the other hand, I cannot, while on my feet, not challenge the noble Lord on his assertions that any of the environmental or carbon reduction measures are the primary cause of a lack of competitiveness in some of our energy-intensive industries. Our energy-intensive industries have been helped, quite rightly, with the burden that has been placed on them by carbon reduction measures. However, if one looks at the range of factors that makes us competitive in the world compared with other countries, particularly the emerging economies, one will see that labour costs by far and away outweigh any impact that carbon reduction could have.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am ready to reply to the noble Baroness’s speech, but I believe that that was an intervention on another speech.
Viscount Ridley
I had actually pretty well come to the end of my remarks anyway—but on the subject of energy-intensive users, we have good evidence from all sorts of people, including what we heard on the news last night from the head of Tata UK. He said that energy was a huge contributor to its decision. The cost of energy in this country is crucial. As I said before, if this is really just about a minor adjustment to the timing of the introduction of the measure, why are we arguing about the whole industry?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I did not want to make an intervention on an intervention, but may I say something now? I agree that we are talking about whether Clause 66 should stand, but the argument has constantly been widened, and the noble Baroness who just intervened raised again the question of what all this does to energy costs, and whether energy costs are important. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, made some comments about that as well. The facts are the facts. The director of the Energy Intensive Users Group has said that,
“a third of the cost of industrial electricity bills in Britain is being spent on green energy taxes, such as the two-year-old carbon price floor support mechanism … and this would rise to about half of all bills by 2020”.
The director of UK Steel has said that,
“rising energy costs were a critical reason for the crisis afflicting the industry, which also led to the collapse of the SSI steel plant in Redcar last month”.
And so it goes, on and on. We cannot just dismiss all this. It cannot be pushed away. I agree that it should not be the central issue in the debate on this clause, but some of the remarks that have been made cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, because they are just not true.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the wise words of my noble friend Lord Ridley. I am one of those who believes that certain types of power are uneconomic, unreliable and unsightly. It is because of the latter point as much as anything else that the Prime Minister made a commitment during the general election campaign, which was given force in the manifesto, that we would not fly in the face of local opinion, as we often have in the past, and build wind farms where they were not wanted. The manifesto commitment is entirely clear, and it is indeed flouting the Salisbury convention to seek to delete it. I very much hope that your Lordships will not do that. We have a duty to examine and scrutinise legislation, and when we believe it is wrong, to ask the other place to think again—but here we are seeking to delete a fundamental part of the Bill.
I am a great admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington; I hope that does not embarrass her. She brings real distinction to our debates, and she speaks from true knowledge—but, by Jove, she was fishing around this afternoon. I was somewhat amused when she tried to call in aid Lady Thatcher; I am not sure that Lady Thatcher would have entirely endorsed her remarks. She then made a lovely remark about Mr Corbyn, saying that he probably did not agree with fracking or nuclear power—but that didn’t matter, because it was not going to be reflected in Labour Party policy. We are clearly in a period of political anarchy at the moment, and it will be interesting to see how long Mr Corbyn lasts, and how long his party lasts with him—but that is not what we are debating this afternoon.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
It is a bit rich, this casting aside of planning legislation and saying that what local authorities’ planning committees come to decisions on are somehow an affront to democracy. Equally rich is the Panglossian view that has just been expressed—or perhaps it is the reverse of Pangloss—that any windmill will be an offence to the eye and should not be allowed. There are a number of windmills, of the 10,000 that we have already spoken of today, which help the businesses on whose land they are located. These are not big landowners—I realise that Members on the other side of the House probably have closer knowledge of those individuals than do the ex-peasants on this side. In a number of instances, particularly in Scotland and particularly for hill farmers, were it not for the presence of the so-called subsidy to get the kit running, such farms would not be able to survive. In my own former constituency, in the Ochil hills, there is a big debate about windmills and their subsidisation, but the quality of the walking there, the attractiveness of the hills and the husbandry of those areas are down to the hill farmers. They depend on other subsidies, but they are never sufficient for them to make anything like a reasonable living. It has been said it is only the big, fat-cat landowners who benefit. Obviously, they will get their share and that is reprehensible; there might be other means of dealing with them in the future—Corbyn notwithstanding, I hasten to add. But it is a very one-sided argument to say that we should cast aside local democracy and ignore the economic benefit to vulnerable businesses engaged in agrarian activities.
Viscount Ridley
I thought that my noble friend Lord Cormack was saying the opposite: that we should not cast aside local democracy and should allow it to prevail without appeal.
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan
The existing system may not be perfect and it is a source of frustration for many people, but it is tried and tested and it is seen to be fair. The implication of this legislation is that it is going to be set aside.
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan
I am sorry. I realise that we are moving towards a vote and I do not wish to take much more of the House’s time. All I want to say is this. It is very dangerous for people, first, to reinterpret manifestos once they have been the substance of electoral victory; and, secondly, to use that as an excuse to undermine elected representatives and local government who have a sensible and fair means of determining the priorities of the planning requirements for all of the communities they represent.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long. When we engaged after the debate on recommital late last week, we hoped that the Government might have moved a lot further than they did. I acknowledge the amendments that have been made, but they do not go to the heart of many of the concerns of the industry. In fact, there is still a blatant unfairness for those who have observed good practice and have tried to work with local planning authorities.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that local democracy matters, developers have worked alongside communities and planning authorities, but because they did not take the route of having a deemed refusal, they are falling foul of this.
Lord Cormack
One of the things we have to bear in mind is that a number of wind farms were granted permission not by local authorities, but by being overruled from the top. Indeed, Lincolnshire County Council was against a number of wind farms that have been thrust upon the county.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I think that the noble Lord almost makes my point because, as far as I understand what is being proposed by the Government, local authorities which have refused an application before 18 June, but which was subsequently appealed successfully on a decision taken by Ministers, will actually qualify. But an agreement reached by locally elected people and a locally elected planning committee after debate, consideration and engagement with the local community, but where the subsequent consent as part of that route due to the cycle of meetings was not given until after 18 June will not qualify. Perhaps he has done so inadvertently, but the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, profoundly makes the point that we are making. There is an inconsistency and an unfairness in what the Government are proposing. There is inconsistency between Section 36 applications for smaller developments added on to existing developments and those which do not need Section 36 applications. I do not believe that the Government have made out the case for fairness of treatment, given the test which their own Minister articulated yesterday.
I am sure that we will debate the Salisbury convention at some stage, and I hope that we will take note of the report of the House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Conventions, which sat around 10 years ago. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was then the deputy leader of my party in your Lordships’ House, emphasised the Liberal Democrats’ view that,
“‘the Salisbury-Addison Convention was an historical negotiation between the Labour Party in the Commons and the Conservative Party in the Lords’ and therefore not relevant to current circumstances”.
We articulated that position almost 10 years ago, and I think that the report itself accepted that things had moved on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said that it was an opportunity for the Government to think again. We certainly want to engage with them in thinking again, because I do not believe that what we have at the moment is fair to developers who had a reasonable expectation that a system which was due to close in March 2017 has been brought forward by a year. In the end, as the Government’s own impact assessment states, the central estimate is around 30p on the electricity bill of the average household. Given the potential damage to the industry and the damage that this is doing to investor confidence in other areas of the renewable industry, it is important that the Government should think again. They have not been able to come up with satisfactory ways of addressing some of the many legitimate complaints that the industry has expressed.
Lord Hardie
My Lords, I also want to draw attention to the fact that this legislation is unfair. Contrary to the statement of the Minister in the other place referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned an example on the Isle of Skye. Perhaps I may give the House some more detail about it. There is a development on Skye called the Glen Ullinish wind farm which was granted planning consent in March 2015. That was before the general election and may even have been before the manifesto, and it was certainly well within the current deadline. The local community, with one exception, supported this proposal. The developers, Kilmac Construction, have had a grid connection contract in place since 2011 and have been making annual contributions to the grid to secure their position. They would otherwise have constructed the site and made connection to the grid before the deadline of December 2018, but they are not able to do so through no fault of their own. The connection date has been given as 2021 and the reason for the delay is that, to secure the supply in the west of Scotland, it is necessary to reinforce and upgrade 124 kilometres of line in the Highlands, which this project will facilitate. If the infrastructure had existed, the wind farm would have been constructed and connected in time.
These developers have invested over £1 million and a considerable amount of time and effort in securing the necessary planning permission, grid connection contract and land ownership permissions to ensure that they can comply with government deadlines. They have only been prevented from doing so by the grid infrastructure problem. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has been aware of this case since 1 September 2015, when the developers wrote to her explaining the circumstances in full. Will the Minister tell the House that the Government will extend the period of grace in this very exceptional case, where the developer is unable to comply with the timescale through no fault of its own? If he is unable to give assurance on this, the appropriate course would be, in the interests of fairness, to remove Clause 66 at this stage, to allow the Government time to reflect on this anomaly and introduce an amendment in the House of Commons, if they wish. This would not, as has been suggested, wreck the Bill. It passes it on to the Commons, where proper consideration can be given to this matter which is so important for the people of Skye.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, as I listened to this debate, I had one of those “Doctor Who” moments. You go into the TARDIS and it looks like a describable area, but it becomes bigger and bigger—each time someone speaks, you go into another room. There is a narrower issue about Clause 66 and that is fairness. I am one of those who regret that the level of subsidy for wind turbines has been as big as it has, and I am keen to get it closed as soon as possible. I am with the Government on that, but they have moved the deadline from March 2017 to March 2016 and then only given way to some extent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said that those who had expended significant amounts of money when the deadline was March 2017 had a reasonable or legitimate expectation. If the legislation goes through as it is now, will there be the possibility of judicial review for those who have spent considerable amounts of money but whose legitimate expectations were not fulfilled because the Government changed their mind? I would like reassurance that there is no legal problem in moving the goal posts when people have expended money under the old drawing-out of the pitch.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the right reverend Prelate have focused on the issue of fairness. My only excuse for intervening briefly in this debate is that I have been asked to open a new centre for research and development of water power in my old constituency on Friday. I had never applied my mind to the issues of renewable energy until now. In the Bill, I find reference to wind power and solar power and I know that the Government have been encouraging these. For example, the wind scheme on Gigha was a great community effort which was crucial to the restoration of that island’s economy. It is the suddenness of this measure that we are objecting to. My question, which I ask quite simply out of ignorance, is this: why do we devote money to sun energy and wind energy but not water energy? I cannot understand that. The old mills in my constituency used to be powered by water. This week, I visited two small schemes on the River Ettrick, which make their small contribution, as do these other sources of energy. It seems to me that we should be encouraging the development of water power, particularly in Scotland where we have plenty of rain. When there is no wind, there is no generation; when there is no sun at night, there is no generation; but water continues all the time, especially in the winter when the demand for energy is so high.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I support the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, about the situation in Skye, where the implementation of the arrangements already in place has been postponed simply because of the need for the connection. There is no point in having the development until the connection is in place. This was all set up before this Bill was put forward. It requires a degree of special attention. All I want is to be assured that it will have that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging debate, taking in issues which are beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, they are important issues. I hope that I can do justice to the quality of the debate and respond to the points made. I shall come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, at the end because her comments perhaps symbolise the crux of the difference. In no particular order, except that it is present in my mind, first, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that I will take up the point about water and write to him on that specifically. As he indicated, it is not within the Bill but I am very happy to look at that and respond to him by letter.
I will probably stand corrected on this but I do not think that solar comes into this legislation either. If it does, I will regret that comment. It could in passing but this Bill basically is concerned about oil and gas, and the onshore wind position. I say to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, that I will write to them on their specific point on Skye. I do not know the particular position, so, without commitment, if I can write to them ahead of Third Reading I will certainly do so.
The debate has exhibited a very clear difference of position in relation to onshore wind. I shall come to the Salisbury convention later. I remind noble Lords that it is the responsibility of the Government and the department to do three important things. We have to ensure that we have a supply of electricity that is affordable; that we have a supply of energy that is secure; and that we decarbonise. There is a danger that today this debate has focused on just one of those elements, almost to the exclusion of the other two. They are all important and attention is required to deal with those three, as I am sure noble Lords will appreciate. I will come back to the steel issue later.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, suggested that we cast aside suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who is not in his place. That has certainly been far from the case. As regards the part of the legislation in which he was taking a particular interest and giving his experience on oil and gas, we have taken up a lot of his suggestions, as noble Lords will know. I have also ensured that he will head a committee, or perhaps an advisory group, which will report to the Secretary of State on CCS policy going forward. I must correct that point as it is not true.
Clearly, there is a difference of view in this debate. Perhaps I may come to the Salisbury convention. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, suggested that we were casting aside planning law. We are not. The grace period makes it very clear that if you have planning permission plus grid connection plus ownership rights, you qualify for the grace period. Therefore, we are far from doing that.
I come to the political point and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who comes with particular knowledge and commitment. I understand all that. She said at one stage that this is political. It is; I plead guilty to that. It is political in the sense that we believe that this is very clear in the manifesto and that it is protected by the Salisbury convention. To find a bit of wriggle room to oppose this while saying that you are upholding the Salisbury convention is not the way forward.
I also regret suggestions from the Liberal Democrats that they do not regard the Salisbury convention as important at all. They have gone a stage further. That is not a desirable place for this House to be in. As I said, I have been here a relatively short period of time, but I value the institutions of this House. I would say the same if a Conservative Opposition were opposing a different political party in government, which will happen at one stage. If we really wish to maintain the traditions of this House and the important role that we fulfil, we have to move very carefully in the territory that we are in. We have a very clear manifesto commitment. People know and understand that. It should be upheld.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
On the question of the Salisbury convention, I confess that I have not included recently the Conservative manifesto in my bedtime reading, but what does the Minister say to the point of substance raised by my noble friend Lord Foulkes? The commitment in the manifesto was to avoid or to reject any new subsidies, whereas we are talking about getting rid of existing subsidies. The noble and learned Lord who spoke about the legal issues involved said that these were legal niceties. They are not; it is the English language. Will the Minister tell us how it is that “new” in English has come to include “pre-existing”? If he cannot tell us that, then it is not a breach of the Salisbury convention because the promise was to end new subsidies, not to get rid of existing subsidies that had a preordained timeline.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord is right on the wording—actually, it is “new public subsidy”, but he is stressing “new”. The point is that those already in receipt of subsidy will continue to have the subsidy. This is for people who have not yet got or applied for the subsidy. It is certainly new to them in a new Parliament. It is absolutely clear that that is within the Salisbury convention. Clearly we will disagree on this. I argue that we are in dangerous territory and that the Salisbury convention should apply.
I omitted to do so earlier because I wanted to finish on the Salisbury convention, but I will say something on affordability and steel. The noble Baroness made some relevant points on that. She said that electricity was a small part of their costs; it is not for all steel companies. If it is a blast furnace it is 3% of the costs; if it is an arc furnace, as it is for Celsa in Cardiff South, a Labour-held constituency, it is 12% of the cost. That is not insignificant. That point was made forcefully at the steel summit by many Labour MPs, as well as by other people. We have to take that on board. It is a complex issue. It is not just about electricity costs, but they certainly are a valid consideration from some steel companies.
With that, there clearly is a disagreement but, as I said, this is dangerous territory for the House. In my belief and the Government’s belief, this is firmly protected by the Salisbury convention and I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
Before the Minister sits down—I asked a specific question and I would like to encourage an answer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke of those who incurred expenditure under the March 2017 deadline who had, I think he said, a legitimate expectation that their investment could be carried through. Is the Minister saying that they do not have a legitimate expectation any more and that that can be changed by the legislation, or is it simply that the Government are legislating in the face of what might be regarded as a legitimate expectation?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
It is neither of those, if I may say so. We have had an engagement exercise with industry, the devolved Administrations and others to look at those who would be prejudiced by the proposal as set out on 18 June. In consequence of that, the grace period that we have put forward—which I think we have agreed to as it stands—is that if you have a planning permission, a grid connection and land rights as at 18 June, you have additional time. We have also moved in relation to the investment freeze condition and appeals to try to achieve that. So, following the engagement exercise launched after the decision which was taken on 18 June, we have catered for those with a legitimate expectation of being able to deploy in this regard.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and, indeed, to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. We always knew that it would be a very interesting debate and it certainly has been wide-ranging. I must start by apologising for not referring to Lady Thatcher by her proper title. I think that may be due to the fact that I was not here during her great tenure.
I do not propose to detain the House for very much longer. It is absolutely clear that we have a difference of opinion. Manifestos are brief, do not contain detail and therefore are open to interpretation, and opinion therefore plays an important role. We are not doing anything that we believe contravenes the Salisbury convention. I have read the Conservative manifesto and I am afraid that it is not that clear. There are some inconsistencies. It says that the Government support wind, which may come as terrible news to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. However, the manifesto says in black and white that the Conservatives think that it plays a valuable role. It also says that the Conservatives will deliver nuclear without subsidy. That is a very interesting phrase. I do not understand how that will work. The manifesto also says that the Conservatives are committed to least-cost decarbonisation and that they will stop new subsidies.
Noble Lords have said very eloquently that the nub of the issue is: does it pass the common-sense test that, if you read the manifesto commitment before the election you would read those words and think, “Ah, yes, that will mean the RO is closing a year early”? You would not think that. That is not a common-sense response to reading those words. Had the Government been clear-minded and knew what they were about to do, why did they not simply say in the manifesto, “We propose to close the renewables obligation for onshore wind a year early”? That would have been very easily understood and everyone would have known where they were. However, that was not what was said. One could put a wide range of interpretations on what was said. Again, I come back to what is happening with the contracts for difference. We have heard nothing from the Government on this. In light of that, how weak this legislation is, and the concerns that have been raised on all sides of the House, I propose to press this amendment and wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Onshore wind power: circumstances in which certificates may be issued after 31 March 2016
(1) Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (electricity supply) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32LC (inserted by section 66) insert—
“32LD Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, on or before 31 March 2016
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—(a) generated by an onshore wind generating station which was accredited on or before 31 March 2016, and(b) generated using—(i) the original capacity of the station, or(ii) additional capacity which in the Authority’s view first formed part of the station on or before 31 March 2016.32LE Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017: grid or radar delay condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 April 2016 and ending with 31 March 2017, and(ii) in respect of which the grid or radar delay condition is met, or(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016, (ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 April 2016 and ending with 31 March 2017, and(iii) the grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.32LF Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, on or before 31 March 2017: approved development condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—(i) which was accredited on or before 31 March 2017, and(ii) in respect of which the approved development condition is met, or(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station on or before 31 March 2017, and(iii) the approved development condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.32LG Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018: grid or radar delay condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 March 2018,(ii) in respect of which the approved development condition is met, and(iii) in respect of which the grid or radar delay condition is met, or(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 March 2018,(iii) the approved development condition is met in respect of the additional capacity, and(iv) the grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.32LH Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2017: investment freezing condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 December 2017, and(ii) in respect of which both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met, or(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016, (ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 April 2017 and ending with 31 December 2017, and(iii) both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met in respect of the additional capacity.32LI Onshore wind generating stations accredited, or additional capacity added, between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2018: grid or radar delay condition met
The circumstances set out in this section are where the electricity is—(a) generated using the original capacity of an onshore wind generating station—(i) which was accredited during the period beginning with 1 January 2018 and ending with 31 December 2018,(ii) in respect of which both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met, and(iii) in respect of which the grid or radar delay condition is met, or(b) generated using additional capacity of an onshore wind generating station, where—(i) the station was accredited on or before 31 March 2016,(ii) in the Authority’s view, the additional capacity first formed part of the station during the period beginning with 1 January 2018 and ending with 31 December 2018,(iii) both the approved development condition and the investment freezing condition are met in respect of the additional capacity, and(iv) the grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of the additional capacity.32LJ The approved development condition
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 32LF to 32LI.
(2) The approved development condition is met in respect of an onshore wind generating station if the documents specified in subsections (4), (5) and (6) were provided to the Authority with the application for accreditation of the station.
(3) The approved development condition is met in respect of additional capacity if the documents specified in subsections (4), (5) and (6) were provided to the Authority on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision that the additional capacity could form part of an onshore wind generating station.
(4) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) evidence that—(i) planning permission for the station or additional capacity was granted on or before 18 June 2015, and(ii) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached,(b) evidence that—(i) planning permission for the station or additional capacity was refused on or before 18 June 2015, but granted after that date following an appeal or judicial review, and(ii) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached,(c) evidence that—(i) an application for 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was made on or before 18 June 2015 for the station or additional capacity, (ii) the period allowed under section 78(2) of the 1990 Act or (as the case may be) section 47(2) of the 1997 Act ended on or before 18 June 2015 without any of the things mentioned in section 78(2)(a) to (b) of the 1990 Act or section 47(2)(a) to (c) of the 1997 Act being done in respect of the application,(iii) the application was not referred to the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers or Scottish Ministers in accordance with directions given under section 77 of the 1990 Act or section 46 of the 1997 Act,(iv) 1990 Act permission or 1997 Act permission was granted after 18 June 2015 following an appeal, and(v) any conditions as to the time period within which the development to which the permission relates must be begun have not been breached, or(d) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, planning permission is not required for the station or additional capacity.(5) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) a copy of an offer from a licensed network operator made on or before 18 June 2015 to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity, and evidence that the offer was accepted on or before that date (whether or not the acceptance was subject to any conditions or other terms), or(b) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, no grid works were required to be carried out by a licensed network operator in order to enable the station to be commissioned or the additional capacity to form part of the station.(6) The documents specified in this subsection are a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, as at 18 June 2015 a relevant developer of the station or additional capacity (or a person connected, within the meaning of section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, with a relevant developer of the station or additional capacity)—
(a) was an owner or lessee of the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated,(b) had entered into an agreement to lease the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated,(c) had an option to purchase or to lease the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated, or(d) was a party to an exclusivity agreement in relation to the land on which the station or additional capacity is situated.(7) In this section—
“the 1990 Act” means the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;“1990 Act permission” means planning permission under the 1990 Act (except outline planning permission, within the meaning of section 92 of that Act);“the 1997 Act” means the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997;“1997 Act permission” means planning permission under the 1997 Act (except planning permission in principle, within the meaning of section 59 of that Act);“exclusivity agreement”, in relation to land, means an agreement by the owner or a lessee of the land not to permit any person (other than the persons identified in the agreement) to construct an onshore wind generating station on the land;“planning permission” means—(a) consent under section 36 of this Act,(b) 1990 Act permission,(c) 1997 Act permission, or(d) development consent under the Planning Act 2008. 32LK The investment freezing condition
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 32LH and 32LI.
(2) The investment freezing condition is met in respect of an onshore wind generating station if the documents specified in subsection (4) were provided to the Authority with the application for accreditation of the station.
(3) The investment freezing condition is met in respect of additional capacity if the documents specified in subsection (4) were provided to the Authority on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision that the additional capacity could form part of an onshore wind generating station.
(4) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, as at the Royal Assent date—(i) the relevant developer required funding from a recognised lender before the station could be commissioned or additional capacity could form part of the station,(ii) a recognised lender was not prepared to provide that funding until enactment of the Energy Act 2016, because of uncertainty over whether the Act would be enacted or its wording if enacted, and(iii) the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before 31 March 2017 if the funding had been provided before the Royal Assent date, and(b) a letter or other document, dated on or before the date which is 28 days after the Royal Assent date, from a recognised lender confirming (whether or not the confirmation is subject to any conditions or other terms) that the lender was not prepared to provide funding in respect of the station or additional capacity until enactment of the Energy Act 2016, because of uncertainty over whether the Act would be enacted or its wording if enacted.(5) In this section—
“recognised lender” means a provider of debt finance which has been issued with an investment grade credit rating by a registered credit rating agency;“the Royal Assent date” means the date on which the Energy Act 2016 is passed.(6) For the purposes of the definition of “recognised lender” in subsection (5)—
“investment grade credit rating” means a credit rating commonly understood by registered credit rating agencies to be investment grade;“registered credit rating agency” means a credit rating agency registered in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 September 2009 on credit rating agencies.32LL The grid or radar delay condition
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 32LE, 32LG and 32LI.
(2) The grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of an onshore wind generating station if, on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision to accredit the station, the documents specified in subsection (4), (5) or (6) were—
(a) submitted by the operator of the station, and(b) received by the Authority.(3) The grid or radar delay condition is met in respect of additional capacity if, on or before the date on which the Authority made its decision that the additional capacity could form part of an onshore wind generating station, the documents specified in subsection (4), (5) or (6) were—
(a) submitted by the operator of the station, and(b) received by the Authority. (4) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) evidence of an agreement with a network operator (“the relevant network operator”) to carry out grid works in relation to the station or additional capacity (“the relevant grid works”);(b) a copy of a document written by, or on behalf of, the relevant network operator which estimated or set a date for completion of the relevant grid works (“the planned grid works completion date”) which was no later than the primary date;(c) a letter from the relevant network operator confirming (whether or not such confirmation is subject to any conditions or other terms) that—(i) the relevant grid works were completed after the planned grid works completion date, and(ii) in the relevant network operator’s opinion, the failure to complete the relevant grid works on or before the planned grid works completion date was not due to any breach by a generating station developer of any agreement with the relevant network operator; and(d) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before the primary date if the relevant grid works had been completed on or before the planned grid works completion date.(5) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) evidence of an agreement between a generating station developer and a person who is not a generating station developer (“the radar works agreement”) for the carrying out of radar works (“the relevant radar works”);(b) a copy of a document written by, or on behalf of, a party to the radar works agreement (other than a generating station developer) which estimated or set a date for completion of the relevant radar works (“the planned radar works completion date”) which was no later than the primary date;(c) a letter from a party to the radar works agreement (other than a generating station developer) confirming, whether or not such confirmation is subject to any conditions or other terms, that—(i) the relevant radar works were completed after the planned radar works completion date, and(ii) in that party’s opinion, the failure to complete the relevant radar works on or before the planned radar works completion date was not due to any breach of the radar works agreement by a generating station developer; and(d) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before the primary date if the relevant radar works had been completed on or before the planned radar works completion date.(6) The documents specified in this subsection are—
(a) the documents specified in subsection (4)(a), (b) and (c);(b) the documents specified in subsection (5)(a), (b) and (c); and(c) a declaration by the operator of the station that, to the best of the operator’s knowledge and belief, the station would have been commissioned, or the additional capacity would have formed part of the station, on or before the primary date if—(i) the relevant grid works had been completed on or before the planned grid works completion date, and(ii) the relevant radar works had been completed on or before the planned radar works completion date. (7) In this section “the primary date” means—
(a) in a case within section 32LE(a)(i) or (b)(i) and (ii), 31 March 2016;(b) in a case within section 32LG(a)(i) and (ii) or (b)(i) to (iii), 31 March 2017;(c) in a case within section 32LI(a)(i) and (ii) or (b)(i) to (iii), 31 December 2017.”(3) In section 32M (interpretation of sections 32 to 32M)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “32LB” substitute “32LL”;(b) at the appropriate places insert the following definitions—““accredited”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means accredited by the Authority as a generating station which is capable of generating electricity from renewable sources; and “accredit” and “accreditation” are to be construed accordingly;”;
““additional capacity”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means any generating capacity which does not form part of the original capacity of the station;”;
““commissioned”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means having completed such procedures and tests in relation to the station as constitute, at the time they are undertaken, the usual industry standards and practices for commissioning that type of generating station in order to demonstrate that it is capable of commercial operation;”;
““generating station developer”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station or additional capacity, means—
(a) the operator of the station, or(b) a person who arranged for the construction of the station or additional capacity;”;““grid works”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means—
(a) the construction of a connection between the station and a transmission or distribution system for the purpose of enabling electricity to be conveyed from the station to the system, or(b) the carrying out of modifications to a connection between the station and a transmission or distribution system for the purpose of enabling an increase in the amount of electricity that can be conveyed over that connection from the station to the system;”;““licensed network operator” means a distribution licence holder or a transmission licence holder;”;
““network operator” means a distribution exemption holder, a distribution licence holder or a transmission licence holder;”;
““onshore wind generating station” has the meaning given by section 32LC(2);”;
““original capacity”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station, means the generating capacity of the station as accredited;”;
““radar works” means—
(a) the construction of a radar station,(b) the installation of radar equipment,(c) the carrying out of modifications to a radar station or radar equipment, or(d) the testing of a radar station or radar equipment;”;““relevant developer”, in relation to an onshore wind generating station or additional capacity, means a person who—
(a) applied for planning permission for the station or additional capacity,(b) arranged for grid works to be carried out in relation to the station or additional capacity,(c) arranged for the construction of any part of the station or additional capacity,(d) constructed any part of the station or additional capacity, or(e) operates, or proposes to operate, the station;”.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, we have already debated this. I think that Amendment 78RA would improve Amendment 78R, so I would wish to test the opinion of the House, but perhaps the Minister would clarify. Is he still insisting on his Amendment 78R, or is our amendment otiose?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell me what it is about.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My understanding is that Amendment 78R contains the new clause to embrace the grace periods. As Clause 66 has fallen, I am not sure whether he wants to insist on it. If he does, I will want to press our Amendment 78RA, but I want clarification, because there is no point dividing the House if he does not insist on his new clause, which incorporates the grace periods.
Baroness Worthington
“Decarbonisation obligation
(1) Within six months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations for a “decarbonisation obligation”.
(2) A “decarbonisation obligation” means the level of carbon intensity of electricity generation in the United Kingdom that a relevant supplier may not exceed in respect of the total kilowatt hours of electricity that it supplies to customers in England and Wales during a given year.
(3) In setting a decarbonisation obligation, the Secretary of State must first obtain and take account of advice from the Committee on Climate Change.
(4) Under this section, a “relevant supplier” refers to electricity suppliers supplying electricity in the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, in this group of amendments we are considering the wider implications of the Government’s energy policy as set out in the Bill. We are again touching on issues to do with investor confidence. The amendments in this group relate to the need to preserve investor confidence in the UK’s energy system and energy infrastructure so that we can continue to see the good work we have seen over the past few decades of reinvestment in modern clean energy systems that will propel us into the remaining years of this century and clean up the energy system in view of our climate change obligations.
During the passage of this Bill and during the passage of the Energy Bill 2013, we had many debates about the right way to incentivise investment in clean technology. As noble Lords are aware, the current policy is that contracts for difference administered by the Secretary of State are granted to contract owners to enable them to have a stable income. They have the wholesale price topped up to a strike price. That policy was put in place in the Energy Act 2013.
The first part of that Act relates to the setting of a decarbonisation target, which was seen as the clearest signal we could give that we will continue to move towards a cleaner energy system after 2020. The period after 2020 is important because until then we are propelled forward by EU targets, including specifically for renewable energy. In the consideration of energy policy beyond 2020, the European Union was persuaded, partly by Ministers from the UK Government, that it should no longer pursue renewables-only targets, and I supported the Government in that argument. We believed that we still needed to see decarbonisation in the power sector but that it was no longer necessary to state that it must be through a group of technologies classed as renewables and that a wider range of technologies could play a part. That is the situation we find ourselves in.
In the EU 2030 climate and energy package, there is no legally binding renewables target for member states from 2020. That leaves open what guidance there is that would give investors confidence that there will be a market or support for technologies that are not yet able to stand fully on their own two feet in competing in the market. The reason they are not able to stand fully on their own two feet is partly to do with the failure of another EU policy: the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. For many reasons which I will not bore the House with, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has failings and has not been sending a strong enough carbon price signal to enable low-carbon technologies to compete with the more emitting technologies. So we have a potential signal in the form of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, but that signal is not sufficient or stable enough to give investors confidence—hence the need for domestic policy and the UK Energy Act 2013 to supplement it.
We need something that supplements the contracts for difference process because it is held by the Secretary of State. One person administers oversight of the contracts that are awarded and the timing of the auctions of those contracts, and the department, in conjunction with the national grid, has to try to arrive at a set of technologies that it thinks will deliver our climate change targets. The problem is that it is very difficult to predict the future. Having spent time as a civil servant, I can say with confidence that it is very hard for the Civil Service to keep pace with all the information out there in the energy market, and that it would be far more sensible if we allowed the market to play more of a role in determining the mix of our energy.
I am a fervent believer in least-cost decarbonisation, and at the moment we run the risk of having a centralised system that is too political. There are too many levers in the hands of the Secretary of State and not enough in the private sector, which ultimately will have to raise the finance and do the projects. The Government are not doing that; they are simply governing the number of auctions they make available.
The amendments in this group attempt to address the problem of insufficient investor confidence in the period 2020 to 2030 in the light of the change in EU policy. Amendment 78S revisits an idea we looked at in Committee. I have retabled it because I believe it is a very important principle, and I hope that the Government are beginning to see its merit and take it seriously. It is that rather than have the administratively burdensome process of contracts for difference and the mechanisms underneath it, we should move to a simpler system where supply companies are responsible for delivering decarbonisation. They interface with customers and provide us with the electricity that keeps our businesses and homes powered, so they should take on the responsibility for selecting projects that will help decarbonise at least cost and do so through a framework in which they are given a target to reduce the carbon intensity of the power that they supply.
I think that this idea might be coming of age. Recently, OVO Energy, a welcome new entrant in the market, has declared itself to be coal free. I think that is probably the first example of a tariff that is structured to demonstrate a commitment to climate change by eliminating coal from the mix. OVO Energy has done that through the use of certificates that it purchases from gas stations. Through the certificates it can show that it is purchasing only gas and therefore keeping coal out of the mix and giving customers a low-cost option for demonstrating their concern about climate change. That announcement is based on the same principle as in Amendment 78S, which is that suppliers are able, through their choice of who they purchase from, to drive markets. They can support gas and perhaps disfavour unabated coal through the use of market mechanisms.
I hope that the Government will fully support this, because it is completely in keeping with their principle of having the private sector play more of a role in decarbonisation. Time has gone by. We have all, in a rather amusing way, reflected on how odd it was that the Energy Act 2013 oversaw almost the full renationalisation of energy policy—not quite, but it felt like that at times—under a Conservative Government. I am hoping that as the Government get into their stride in their current role, they will see the merit of shifting to a more market-based system. Then we will be able to avoid the kind of arguments that we have just had to endure over Clause 66, which is symptomatic of the fact that the Government are now in the driving seat and that it is not a really comfortable place to be. I think that the Minister may agree.
I am hoping to hear from the Minister some words of encouragement and reassurance that the idea in Amendment 78S is being considered seriously by the department, because I think it offers a good solution to our dilemma over how to achieve the things we want—reducing our carbon emissions and making sure that the lights stay on. The suppliers could play an important role here.
Amendment 78T relates to the concerns that I expressed in a previous debate—so I will not reiterate them—that at the moment contracts for difference are suspended. “Suspended” may be a strong word but there has been no auction this year for contracts for difference, despite the fact that we would have anticipated that there would have been by now if we had followed the pattern of previous years. We are left with something of a hiatus. We do not yet know whether the contract for difference auctions will be scheduled. I am sorry to keep asking this of the Minister, and I know I will get the same response, but it is important to have clarity on this. I hope that by the time the Bill reaches the other place we will have clarity, and certainly before it leaves that place I strongly encourage the Government to provide that clarity over what is happening to the contracts for difference regime.
Amendment 78T would require that auctions were held at least annually for as long as the carbon intensity of electricity was more than 100 grams per kilowatt hour. That is for as long as the contracts for difference regime continues: I am aware that should we adopt Amendment 78S, we would not very much need to carry on with Amendment 78T. This is designed to say that if we continued with the contracts for difference process, we would hold those auctions annually so that there would be certainty for investors and we would have a regular process by which people could plan—and that the guiding principle would be that we are trying to get our carbon intensity down to 100 grams. The reason for that, as noble Lords may know, is that our carbon intensity remains fairly stubbornly high at around 400 grams per kilowatt hour, despite all our good efforts in supporting renewable energy.
Renewable energy has actually made a considerable difference in displacing thermal power and reducing emissions—but instead, while that has been happening, we have burned more coal because coal prices have reduced relative to gas. That has meant that for every step we take forward on renewables we see ourselves taking a step back, because we are switching from gas, which is a phenomenally valuable and clean fuel that I am sure we will be using for some time, back to using inefficient old coal stations for prolonged periods. I am happy to say that the economics are shifting again and we are seeing coal playing much less of a role. That is partly to do with the introduction of the carbon price floor, which is helping gas to compete, but the truth of the matter is that we still have stubbornly high carbon intensity and we need to see it reducing. The reason why we need power in particular to reduce is that we need to have clean power in order to then power our vehicles and maybe provide heat to our homes in a low-carbon way. There is no point electrifying transport if our power remains dirty. It therefore seems logical and sensible that we should pursue power sector decarbonisation in a faster way and get that carbon intensity down to the point where electrification in those other sectors will then make complete sense.
I turn to Amendment 78UA. I must explain that this is a manuscript amendment, for which I apologise to the House. The reason is that we had tabled an original version in a previous Marshalled List but had been advised to change the wording. On reflection late last night, however—this has been one of those Bills on which we have been putting in rather late hours—we reverted to the original wording because I felt that the original wording should stand.
My apologies to the House if I descend into what may seem to be a level of detail that might perhaps not be of great interest to everybody. I suspect that I should declare that I was partly involved in the drafting of the Climate Change Act as a civil servant in the Department for Energy and Climate Change, so this is an area that I know in some detail and feel quite strongly about. I shall attempt to explain what we are trying to do here in a way that I hope will hold people’s interest.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the ingenuity of the proposals in this amendment; they are fascinating and make one think very hard, because these are hugely complex issues. Perhaps I may put two questions to her and perhaps also to my noble friend.
First, will this switch to this way of trying to achieve our carbon obligations and decarbonisation lead to cheaper power in the power sector? That must be an important question. We discussed earlier the problems in the power sector and the fact that pushing it too far and too fast may not necessarily help decarbonisation but will have to be paid for in lost jobs. That is bound to be on people’s minds when looking at this kind of amendment.
The second and even more obvious question is whether these arrangements will get the combined-cycle gas turbines built. At present speed, under the contracts for difference regime, and the capacity payments auction and so on, will they get them built in time? We are now entering a very worrying period, with a very low margin of safety in our electricity system—I believe that it will be down to 1.2 gigawatts. When I had some responsibility for these matters, years ago, it was 17 gigawatts. That gives noble Lords an idea of how far we have come down thanks to the rapid closure of many coal-fired stations and so on. Will this pattern lead to that result? These may be layman’s questions addressed to a very complex issue but I would be interested to know the answers. If the implication is the other way, we will have additional costs on power and get further out of line with our competitors. We always have to remember that in the Climate Change Act—behind which the noble Baroness was one of the founding figures and driving forces—there was the reservation that we should not get too far out of line with our competitors. In some areas, we clearly have done; we are out of line. In the steel industry, as we were saying earlier, we have energy charges that fall on at least parts of that industry at twice the level of charges in Germany and, in turn, are far higher than those throughout Europe. I saw one figure showing that they are 10 times the levels in China—which might account for our present woes in the steel industry. In examining this, can we please be guided on whether this will deliver the goods? That is my question.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I particularly wish to speak to Amendment 78UA, to which I have added my name, but I will start with Amendment 78S, which is the decarbonisation debate. I was certainly very disappointed that the Minister confirmed—he was very clear, and I welcome clarity—that the Government will not take advantage of the opportunities opened to them under the previous Energy Act and declare a decarbonisation target. We have had a lot of discussion about the Conservative manifesto, and in fact the Minister referred to it in the context of saying why that would not happen. However, the words of the Conservative manifesto were completely clear. They suggest that a decarbonisation target would meet both the Government’s objectives. The manifesto says:
“We will cut emissions as cost-effectively as possible, and will not support additional distorting and expensive power sector targets”.
That is very clear.
The point about a decarbonisation target—exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said—is that it moves on from the distorting targets that we had for renewables in terms of decarbonising our energy sector. In fact, because it brings in proper mechanisms in terms of markets and all of that, it is actually less expensive. So, it seems that a decarbonisation target will not only help us very specifically meet our Climate Change Act targets—which the Conservative manifesto fully supports—but provide a route for those targets to be met with a non-distorting and less expensive method than we had under the renewable targets under the EU’s 2020 system and so on. This is therefore a very good and logical amendment. It is almost a vital amendment that the Government should be able to accept to fulfil their own manifesto commitments. I do not say that to make a clever lawyer’s argument; I say it because it is how I read it. It is in plain English in the manifesto.
I move on to Amendment 78UA, to which I have put my name. I pay credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for the great role that she played in bringing the Climate Change Act into being. I played a much more modest role in those days on the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats in opposition—strangely, we are back in opposition again; but there we are. I was going to mention the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and the fantastic work that he did with me and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We helped to deliver, right across the House, together with the Cross Benches, the fantastic Climate Change Act. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, did a great piece of work.
One of the things that I did then was to try to bring to the attention of the Bill team and Ministers the fact that although those carbon budgets were great, they excluded 50% of the country’s emissions because they took into account the EU ETS trading. So, in effect, government policy only controlled, or had an effect on, about 50% of UK emissions. The Bill team did not seem to understand this—albeit that at the time the department was not DECC but Defra—and nor did the Ministers particularly take an interest in it. I think that the trouble was that, once those in the Treasury understood it—at least, they certainly understood it well ahead of anybody else—they decided that they did not want this at all. Ironically, that was under a Labour Government. However, as the noble Baroness said, the Climate Change Act was a great thing.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this part of the Bill. I shall take the amendments in the order that they are marshalled.
With regard to Amendment 78S, we are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to do its part to tackle climate change, in line with the Climate Change Act, but we want to do so as cost-effectively as possible to make sure that our energy is secure and affordable, as well as lower carbon. We believe that locking ourselves into an expensive and inflexible target for the power sector is not the way to do that. There are just too many things that we cannot predict about how the energy system will develop up to 2030, and the costs of getting it wrong would be picked up by consumers for many years to come.
The amendment would, in effect, require the Government to introduce an additional power sector target in the form of an obligation on electricity suppliers in the United Kingdom. As has been referred to, the Conservative manifesto, upon which this Government were elected, stated that we will not support additional distorting and expensive power sector targets, but it is our belief that this is what the amendment would lead to.
Noble Lords will know that setting a decarbonisation target for the power sector, which would be the effect of the amendment, was debated in this House during the passage of the then Energy Bill 2013, which has been referred to, and the then Infrastructure Bill 2015. The topic of power sector decarbonisation targets was also discussed during the Committee stage of this Bill. In that discussion, I set out the Government’s intention not to set a power sector decarbonisation target, following that manifesto pledge. As has been confirmed, I also wrote to noble Lords after that further reiteration of the position, explaining that, instead, the Government have already committed to set out totals for the levy control framework beyond 2020, providing a basis for electricity investment into the next decade. I shall not restate the position on contracts for difference, as I think it is already clear that we are committed to making a statement on that this autumn. Therefore, I know that noble Lords will be familiar with the arguments against setting a target such as this.
We have an extensive range of targets at the domestic, EU and international levels. These require action across the economy to meet targets in 2020, 2030 and 2050 on carbon, renewables and energy efficiency. Domestically, we have a legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. We have carbon budgets setting out targets to 2027 and will be setting a further budget next year, covering the period to 2032. We are also subject to EU targets on carbon, which cover 2020 and 2030. On renewables, these run to 2020 and include interim milestones along the way. Internationally, we are subject to the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol and the compliance periods that these set up.
These targets are comprehensive, far-reaching, and mutually reinforcing. What makes the United Kingdom unusual by comparison with our European partners is the fact that we have a carbon budget system with comprehensive reporting and independent scrutiny. Investors want to know that we have clear, credible and affordable plans. The CBI has said that clarity on future financial support for low-carbon electricity will be more important than targets in driving investment. That is why we have said that we will set out totals for the levy control framework beyond 2020, providing a basis for electricity investment into the next decade, as well as setting out plans in the autumn in respect of future contract for difference allocation rounds.
In relation to Amendment 78T, I acknowledge that it is important that developers and investors have some foresight as to the frequency of CFD allocation rounds. However, this must be balanced with LCF budget availability, which, as noble Lords know, is funded by a levy on consumer bills. The function of the levy control framework is to limit the amount paid by consumers. It is therefore crucial that the Government are able to take decisions in the light of the latest evidence around deployment projections and costs.
The United Kingdom is continuing to make progress towards the 2020 renewables target of 15% of final energy consumption from renewable sources, with provisional 2014 figures showing that we are on target to meet the 2020 target. No carbon intensity targets for electricity generation have been set in order that we retain flexibility around how we achieve our 2050 target. Committing to annual CFD allocations, even only in certain circumstances, would inhibit the Government’s ability to respond to evidence around levels of deployment in renewable electricity generation, costs to consumers and opportunities in other sectors, such as heat and transport.
The noble Baroness’s amendment would unnecessarily commit the Government to a course of action that would neither benefit the consumer nor provide any certainty to renewable energy generators or investors. We are committed to our energy targets and continue to make progress towards meeting them. For this reason, I do not accept the amendment.
Amendment 78UA seeks to make a fundamental change to the Climate Change Act which—as, in fairness, I think the noble Baroness acknowledged—runs contrary to how the carbon budget regime was designed and implemented by the last Labour Government. The noble Baroness played a significant part in that, I know. I think that this is much more than a small, technical amendment and it has huge implications for the Climate Change Act. It changes the focus of the United Kingdom’s approach to decarbonisation and, I believe, sends a wrong message about our faith in the EU emissions trading system. I may have misquoted the noble Baroness in terms of it being a radical change. If I did, I apologise. I think that it is a radical change. She is shaking her head, so I have misinterpreted her position and I apologise for that.
We believe that the amendment would make a fundamental change to the basis of carbon budgets and, if it were accepted, it is likely that we would need to revisit the levels of all current budgets. It would be an unnecessarily and overly burdensome process, as carbon budgets reflect the EU ETS.
Instead, we want to focus on driving the action to deliver decarbonisation at least cost. We are committed to ensuring that the United Kingdom continues to do its part to tackle climate change in line with the Climate Change Act and international obligations. However, we want to do this as cost-effectively as possible to make sure that our energy is secure and affordable, as well as lower carbon.
The EU emissions trading system is a central component of the United Kingdom Government’s policy for delivering emissions reductions in the UK and further afield in a cost-effective and technologically neutral way. The EU emissions trading system is designed to deliver least-cost decarbonisation of particular sectors across the EU, and we are supportive of this approach. We are also supportive of international efforts to price carbon, such as the EU emissions trading system, which is the first, and largest, cap-and-trade system of allowances for emitting greenhouse gases in the world.
We recognise that the EU emissions trading system requires reform, and the United Kingdom has been one of the leading advocates of measures to strengthen the scheme, such as negotiating the market stability reserve. However, on what is, I think, at the very least a significant change, we need to beware of throwing out the baby with the bath-water. We do not want to imply a loss of faith in the EU emissions trading system as a means of achieving least-cost decarbonisation by decoupling our carbon budget regime from it. Instead, we are focused on continuing to work with other member states to strengthen the EU emissions trading system.
Finally, it must be noted that our approach is in line with the Committee on Climate Change’s advice on the use of emissions trading system allowances. It renewed its advice in 2013 that we should include emissions trading system allowances in the net carbon account and proposed an approach for doing so, which the then Government broadly accepted.
My noble friend Lord Howell made significant points during the debate about ensuring that we keep energy affordable. I think that this would jeopardise that, at the very least.
In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have found my explanation reassuring and will not press their amendments.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his support for this amendment and for lending his name to it.
I am afraid that I am not reassured. I have listened to and understood the argument. However, it is not a radical change but an important change—there is a distinction there.
In answer to the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about whether it will be cheaper to do it this way, I honestly believe that, for UK plc, it will be. At present, the way the budgets work is that, essentially, we pay other people to decarbonise and then we import the certificates. That can be done for a while, and it makes economic sense to do so. In fact, for the first three carbon budgets, while the system has been bedding down, it probably made sense to use a traded system—the rules and the allocations from Europe were clearer and we were all finding our way to see whether the EU ETS would deliver. The closer that we get to our 2050 target, the more that that approach starts to be a false economy. We find then that, potentially, we are repeatedly paying other countries to decarbonise and not investing in our own country.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I can follow the argument that the noble Baroness is making very clearly. However, does she not agree that the great danger with the proposal is that it takes away the flexibility of being able to use the trading system? At the moment, it does not have to be used but it can be used if it is appropriate. If we were to go down this path, we would be throwing away that tool.
Baroness Worthington
I am grateful to the Minister for that question. However, that is not the case. There are two versions of flexibility in the Climate Change Act: there is an overarching flexibility created by the budget system, and there is a flexibility that the Government maintain to settle their accounts using credits that they can then take from the EU budget that they are given, by simply not auctioning them, or purchase from offsets that are relatively cheap. There is always a limited amount of offsetting that the Government are able to do if they find themselves out of an account. This would not change that; it simply changes how we count emissions and what counts towards the budget. In this sense, we are saying that actual emissions—what happens in our territorial waters —is what we count. Then, we do the settling up, using credits, to a certain extent, as the budget management system. That is an important point and I hope that people can follow it.
As to whether this would take us out of step with other countries, as I have said, other countries use actual accounts for their targets. Germany is the most obvious example, where there are domestic climate change targets that go beyond European targets. There is a reason for that: Germany is investing in business, infrastructure, companies and enterprise that will be future proofed and provide an export market long into the future. Germany has been very smart about that. We, on the other hand, have a slightly more liberalised market view. In this case, because the ETS is not working as it was meant to, that is potentially damaging our ability to stay within our targets, to do so cost-effectively and to drive investment here. We want to see jobs here and money flowing here, not necessarily pass money overseas for the abatement that someone else has invested in.
For those reasons, I believe that this is an important but not radical move that squares the circle. In response to Amendment 78S, the Minister said that we do not want to set any more distorting new targets in the power sector. I am happy to concede that point. However, this is a very good way of doing what we all agree that we need to do, which is to create investor certainty that this is an enterprise that we remain committed to. As we get closer and closer to that 2050 target, we need to start looking not just at what is happening Europe-wide but at what is happening in the UK economy, so that we are benefitting from the supply chains, the investment and the projects happening here.
I hope that I have made it quite clear why I think this is important, why it is timely and why it has arisen in the course of this Bill. I am encouraged by the support that I have seen from the House. I feel confident that I can answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Howell: this will be cheaper in the long run; it will be cheaper for UK plc to do this in a way that enables us to drive investment here. For those reasons, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 78UA.
Baroness Worthington
“Emissions trading: United Kingdom carbon account
In section 27 (net UK carbon account) of the Climate Change Act 2008, after subsection (2) insert—“No carbon units deriving from the operation of the EU Emissions Trading System may be credited to or debited from the net United Kingdom carbon account for any period commencing after 31 December 2027.””
Baroness Worthington
“Capacity mechanism
Fossil fuelled generating plant granted 15 year capacity contracts under the capacity mechanism established under the Energy Act 2013 shall be subject to—(a) a carbon price;(b) a requirement to fit best available technologies to mitigate air pollutants; and(c) the Emissions Performance Standard as established in the Energy Act 2013.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I reassure the Minister that this is not a matter on which I intend to seek the opinion of the House. It is an issue which I believe we need to discuss in the context of an energy Bill, but I hope that a discussion can be had outside the Chamber. I just wanted to alert the House to the issue because it is materially relevant to the energy policy as it is being played out.
One pillar of the Energy Act 2013 was the introduction of a new support mechanism to help fund extra capacity in the market, designed to complement the contracts being signed for low carbon. It is a very detailed policy with many aspects.
It has come to my attention that the annual auctions of new capacity under the capacity mechanism are bringing forward rather a lot of applications for 15-year contracts from distributed, very small-scale generating plant. Many of those plants are diesel-powered and many others are open-cycle gas turbines of a small scale which are much less efficient than the full-scale CCGTs that are normally built for capacity.
The amendment was tabled to enable us to have a debate on the Floor of the House on an issue which is time-critical, because the next auction will take place in December. Three gigawatts’ worth of small generating plant are prequalified. That is on top of a number of megawatts that were granted in the previous auction that took place last year. So my fear is that, over time, we are starting to see a substantial amount of distributed thermal energy coming forward under the capacity mechanism. Of course, the capacity mechanism creates an incentive to new-build. Having read the Government’s gas strategy, I believe that the Government intended those 15-year contracts to be made available to larger-scale, very efficient, state-of-the-art gas turbines to be there as back-up and to provide us with base-load power. Instead of that, we are seeing coming forward, as a result of significant market distortion, investment in much smaller kit that is far less efficient and much more polluting. The danger is that this drift towards distributed diesel generators and open-cycle gas will significantly affect our ability to decarbonise.
One argument that will be made will be that such generators are there just to catch the peaks and will not operate more than that. However, there is nothing in government policy or legislation that prevents them operating for far longer periods. My fear is that, because of the scale of these plants, they will not be paying a carbon price: they are not subject to the EU carbon price, nor are they subject to the Government’s carbon price support mechanism, which tops up the EU price. That is a significant distortion that we should be mindful of. Markets are nothing if not efficient and nothing if not good at finding loopholes. It will be an unintended consequence of the capacity mechanism rules as they are currently drafted that this will be the market’s answer to our capacity issues.
I visit my mother-in-law in India. Building an energy system in which diesel generators are providing back-up is not a modern-economy solution. There are many other ways to provide safe and reliable power. We should not rely on diesel generation, which is much more what you would find in developing countries that have fewer options and are not able to deliver secure and stable supplies of electricity. We have been doing that for decades and have a world-class grid that enables us to do it. So we are concerned that while we are not letting contracts for clean power, we are continuing to let contracts for traditional fossil-fuelled power, and that there is this loophole in the capacity mechanism rules which allows a far greater volume than anyone would have anticipated of small distributed diesel generators.
In addition to paying no carbon price, such generators also have very loose air-quality standards applied to them—far looser than are applied to larger plant. I do not need to bring the House’s attention to the fact that we have had a rather high-profile problem with diesel in the past few months. “Dieselgate” and VW’s cheating on the standards is a serious issue which helps to explain why we might be struggling to hit our legally binding air-quality standards in the European Union, because if everyone is cheating it is no wonder that our emissions are higher than we thought they should be according to our inventory calculations. So we have an air-quality issue; in fact, the Government have been taken to court over their failure to comply with those air-quality standards. Having a large number of distributed diesel generators operating potentially for long periods through the winter months will not do anything to alleviate our air-quality problems. There is a definite correlation between exposure to the particulates that emerge from diesel and ill-health, especially in younger and older people. So, not just for climate reasons but for air-quality reasons, we should not allow a huge proliferation of this very inefficient and very polluting smaller generating plant—and that we should be giving them 15-year contracts really concerns me.
We know that all Governments in the UK hold as sacrosanct the fact that if you sign a contract with the private sector, you will not then go back on it. That is a tenet that we hold dear in order to preserve our investor credibility. Once those contracts are signed, there will be nothing we can do for 15 years, which worries me greatly. I am not expecting a full and detailed response from the Minister today; I hope that I can just convey the reason for my concern. I hope that I will hear some reassurance that the department is alive to this problem, that it is indeed seen as an unintended consequence and a loophole, and that we are not simply saying, “Ah, well, that’s what the market’s delivering”. That is not sufficient, especially as there are distortions in relation to carbon and not paying the carbon price, and especially in relation to air quality.
Amendment 78V would therefore require that any fossil fuel-generating plant granted a 15-year capacity contract under the capacity mechanism created under the Energy Act 2013 would be subject to a carbon price, so that the Government would apply a taxation policy to such plant; that such plant would be required to fit best-available technology to mitigate air pollutants; and that the Government’s emissions performance standard as was introduced in the Act would apply as well, which would act as a constraint and a break on the number of hours that such stations could run—it would not be a full answer to the problem because it would still allow them to run for considerable periods, but certainly it would not allow them to run unimpeded for an entire year.
Given the position of leadership that the UK rightly enjoys in terms of our sensible policies for decarbonisation and our Climate Change Act, the idea that the energy policy in front of us should lead to us relying on diesel generators fills me with alarm. I hope that we can do something collectively, across all sides of the House, to address this issue before the contracts are signed in December. I think that I have said enough. I do not wish to detain the House any further and I look forward to hearing a response from the Government.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I shall not detain the House very long. I am not sure that the amendment as written is precisely right, but the important principle that comes out of it—I come back to what I said briefly at Second Reading—is that, at the end of the day, the UK economy has to crowd out coal by other generating fuels. Before the election, the Prime Minister, the then Deputy Prime Minister and the then leader of the Opposition together bravely pledged that coal should come out of UK generating capacity. For whatever reason, after the election only one of those people is left in office—the Prime Minister—so on his shoulders rests that responsibility as our Prime Minister to achieve that pledge.
I do not see a great deal of movement from the Government in fulfilling it. It needs to be addressed and this amendment goes some way towards that. But it is a much larger issue which we could solve so easily, probably by using an active emissions performance standard rather than one that is fixed, as it is at the moment, in primary legislation. I hope that the Government—indeed, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office—will bring forward proposals to deliver this. In Scotland, they talk about vows; I see this as a vow that is fundamental to our climate change obligation not just to the UK but to the rest of the world.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, once again very briefly, could the Minister also make some comment in his response about what the cost to the consumer will be of electricity which is generated by plant under contracts under the capacity mechanism?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on Amendment 78V and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for introducing it. We missed each other late last night to discuss this amendment, but I am grateful that she rang before breakfast this morning so that we could discuss it then. That is how seriously we both take our jobs. Again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness because otherwise it would have taken us on the blind side that the amendment was coming up today. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said in relation to this issue and for confirming that she will not push it to a vote. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, are right, but as framed there would be difficulties with the amendment anyway.
Perhaps I may say something about the purpose of the capacity market for the benefit of the House and then say something about the particular issue that has been raised. The purpose of the capacity market is to ensure security of electricity supply by providing all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system and to deliver energy when it is needed. The first capacity market auction was successfully concluded in December 2014, contracting 49.3 gigawatts of capacity at a clearing price of £19.40 per kilowatt—and with that I have addressed the particular and very valid point raised by the right reverend Prelate. The outcome was great news for consumers, as fierce competition between participants drives down costs. The results will ensure that enough of our existing capacity will remain open at the end of the decade, as well as unlocking new investment.
I accept that there is an issue about emissions. Other government policies that were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, including the emissions performance standard and the carbon price floor, limit potential emissions from thermal plant for larger producers in keeping with our aims of decarbonising the power sector. For example, the emissions performance standard for larger generators limits carbon emissions to around half of that produced by unabated coal. The carbon price floor obviously provides an incentive for investment in low-carbon electricity generation. I accept that, as things stand, small generators are not covered by that. The department is aware of the issue, but we believe that the EPS represents the best way of looking at the smallest generators, perhaps within the review cycle for the EPS rather than in the context of the capacity market alone because that clearly seeks to ensure that the capacity we need is delivered. I am happy to discuss this further outside the Chamber. It is worth recognising that, at least at present, most of the small generators in the capacity market run for only a limited number of hours per year, but I appreciate that there is no guarantee on that. However, I recognise that this is an issue.
I turn now to what might have been the point that, given his background, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, was referring to. There is not a state aid issue here. The capacity market state aid clearance is based on the current design of the mechanism, including the concept of technology neutrality, so accepting the amendment in its present form would have required state aid renotification, which as we know typically takes nine months or longer. That would have introduced uncertainty into the market and would have caused problems. But I am happy to continue a discussion on how to tackle what is a very real issue, and I thank the noble Baroness for her comments.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for his response, and our conversation was welcome just so that this did not come completely out of the blue. I am reassured by his comments and I think that this is something we can work on together to try to find a solution. I am certain that the wording I came up with was not perfect.
I would just say that state aid absolutely does require technology neutrality, and it is something that we need to think about in general for the whole of the EMR Bill. State aid clearance was on the basis of technology neutrality and that relates to the CFDs that we let as much as the capacity mechanism. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that we can continue to work on this, and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
( ) regulations under section (Disclosure permitted after specified period)(1),”
“( ) regulations under section (Disclosure by OGA to certain persons)(6),”
“Regulations and orders: disapplication of requirements to consult the OGA
(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State is required by this Act, the Petroleum Act 1998 or the Energy Act 2008 to consult the OGA before exercising a power to make regulations or an order.
(2) The requirement does not apply in relation to the first exercise of the power in the period of one year beginning with the date on which section 1 comes into force.”
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in view of the earlier defeat of Clause 66, I shall not move this amendment.
“ScheduleAbandonment of offshore installationsPetroleum Act 19981 Part 4 of the Petroleum Act 1998 (abandonment of offshore installations) is amended as follows.
2 Before section 29 insert—
“28A Restriction on abandonment
(1) A person to whom a notice may be given under section 29(1) in relation to an offshore installation or submarine pipeline may not abandon, or begin or continue the decommissioning of, the installation or pipeline unless an abandonment programme approved by the Secretary of State has effect in relation to the installation or pipeline.
(2) A person who without reasonable excuse contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.”
3 (1) Section 29 (preparation of programmes) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The power to give a notice under subsection (1) is exercisable—
(a) on the Secretary of State’s own motion, or(b) at the request of any person to whom the notice may be given (whether or not the notice is given to that person).”(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) A person to whom a notice under subsection (1) is given—
(a) must consult the OGA before submitting the abandonment programme to the Secretary of State, and(b) must frame the programme so as to ensure (whether by means of the timing of the measures proposed, the inclusion of provision for collaboration with other persons, or otherwise) that the cost of carrying it out is kept to the minimum that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.(2B) When consulted under paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) the OGA must (in particular) consider and advise on—
(a) alternatives to abandoning or decommissioning the installation or pipeline, such as re-using or preserving it, and(b) how to comply with paragraph (b) of that subsection.”(4) In subsection (3), after “such” insert “other”.
4 (1) Section 32 (approval of programmes) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The modifications or conditions may (in particular) include modifications or conditions—
(a) which are intended (whether by means of the timing of the measures proposed, the inclusion of provision for collaboration with other persons, or otherwise) to reduce the total cost of carrying out the programme, provided that they do not increase the total costs to be met by any person who is to be subject to obligations under the programme or under any other abandonment programme;(b) requiring the persons who submitted the programme to carry out and publish or make available to the Secretary of State and the OGA a review of the programme and its implementation including, where relevant, recommendations as to the contents and implementation of future abandonment programmes.”(3) At the end insert—
“(6) Before reaching a decision under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the OGA, and(b) take into account the cost of carrying out the programme that has been submitted and whether it is possible to reduce that cost by modifying the programme or making it subject to conditions.(7) When consulted under subsection (6)(a), the OGA must (in particular) consider and advise on—
(a) alternatives to abandoning or decommissioning the installation or pipeline, such as re-using or preserving it, and(b) whether section 29(2A)(b) has been complied with and, if it has not been, modifications or conditions that would enable it to be complied with.”5 In section 33 (failure to submit programme), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) When preparing an abandonment programme under this section the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the OGA, and(b) frame the programme so as to ensure (whether by means of the timing of the measures proposed, the inclusion of provision for collaboration with other persons, or otherwise) that the cost of carrying it out is kept to the minimum that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.(3B) When consulted under paragraph (a) of subsection (3A), the OGA must (in particular) consider and advise on—
(a) alternatives to abandoning or decommissioning the installation or pipeline, such as re-using or preserving it, and(b) how to comply with the requirement in paragraph (b) of that subsection.”6 (1) Section 34 (revision of programmes) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A person who makes a proposal under subsection (1) that is likely to have an effect on the cost of carrying out the programme must frame it so as to ensure (whether by means of the timing of the measures proposed, the inclusion of provision for collaboration with other persons, or otherwise) that the cost of carrying out the programme as proposed to be altered is kept to the minimum that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(4B) Where the Secretary of State makes a proposal under subsection (1)(a) the purpose of which is to reduce the total cost of carrying out a programme, the proposal may not increase the total costs to be met by any person who is to be subject to obligations under the programme or under any other abandonment programme.”
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) If it appears to the Secretary of State that what is proposed under subsection (1) is likely to have an effect on the cost of carrying out the programme, the Secretary of State must, before making a determination under subsection (7)—
(a) consult the OGA, and(b) take that effect into account.(7B) When consulted under subsection (7A)(a) the OGA must (in particular) consider and advise on—
(a) alternatives to abandoning or decommissioning the installation or pipeline, such as re-using or preserving it, and(b) whether subsection (4A) applies and, if so, whether it has been complied with.”7 After section 34 insert—
“34A Amendment of programmes
(1) This section applies where an abandonment programme approved by the Secretary of State includes provision by virtue of which the programme may be amended.
(2) A person who proposes to make an amendment under such a provision that is likely to have an effect on the cost of carrying out the programme must frame the amendment so as to ensure (whether by means of the timing of the measures proposed, the inclusion of provision for collaboration with other persons, or otherwise) that the cost of carrying out the programme as proposed to be amended is kept to the minimum that is reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
(3) If it appears to the person who proposes to make the amendment that subsection (2) applies, the person must consult the OGA before making the amendment.
(4) When consulted under subsection (3) the OGA must (in particular) consider and advise on—
(a) alternatives to abandoning or decommissioning the installation or pipeline, such as re-using or preserving it, and(b) whether subsection (2) applies and, if so, whether it has been complied with.(5) Any person who has the function of approving amendments made under a provision mentioned in subsection (1) must, when exercising the function, take into account the effect of the proposed amendment on the cost of carrying out the programme.”
8 After section 36 insert—
“36A Reduction of costs of carrying out programmes
(1) This section applies where an abandonment programme approved by the Secretary of State has effect in relation to an installation or pipeline.
(2) The Secretary of State may, for the purpose of reducing the total cost of carrying out the programme, by written notice require any person who submitted the programme to take, or refrain from taking, action of a description specified in the notice.
(3) The notice may, in particular, require—
(a) changes to the times at which the measures proposed in the programme are to be carried out;(b) the persons who are under a duty to secure that the programme is carried out to collaborate with other persons.(4) The programme, and any condition to which it is subject, has effect subject to any notice given under this section.
(5) A notice given under this section may not increase the total costs to be met by any person who is to be subject to obligations under the programme or under any other abandonment programme.
(6) The Secretary of State may not give a notice to a person under this section without first giving the person an opportunity to make written representation as to whether the notice should be given.
(7) A person to whom a notice is given under this section who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the notice is guilty of an offence.
(8) If a notice under this section is not complied with, the Secretary of State may—
(a) do anything necessary to give effect to the notice, and(b) recover from the person to whom the notice was given any expenditure incurred under paragraph (a).(9) A person liable to pay any sum to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (8) must also pay interest on that sum for the period beginning with the day on which the Secretary of State notified the person of the sum payable and ending with the date of payment.
(10) The rate of interest payable in accordance with subsection (9) is a rate determined by the Secretary of State as comparable with commercial rates.”
9 In section 37 (default in carrying out programmes), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the proposed remedial action is likely to have an effect on the cost of carrying out the programme, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the OGA before giving a notice under subsection (1), and(b) take that effect into account when deciding whether to give the notice.(1B) When consulted under subsection (1A)(a), the OGA must consider and advise on the likely effect of the proposed remedial action on the cost of carrying out the programme.”
10 In section 40 (offences: penalties)—
(a) after “section” insert “28A,”, and(b) after “33,” insert “36A,”.11 (1) Section 41 (offences: general) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “section” insert “28A,”, and(b) after “33,” insert “36A,”.(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) after “section” insert “28A,”, and(b) after “33,” insert “36A,”.(4) In subsection (3)—
(a) after “section” insert “28A,”, and(b) after “33,” insert “36A,”.(5) In subsection (5), after “section” insert “28A, 36A or”.
12 (1) Section 42 (validity of Secretary of State’s acts) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) the giving of a notice under section 36A(2);”.(3) In subsection (5), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) in relation to the giving of a notice under section 36A(2), means the requirements of section 36A(6);”.Energy Act 200813 (1) Section 30 of the Energy Act 2008 (abandonment of carbon storage installations) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “subsections” insert “(1A),”.
(3) After that subsection insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the amendments made to Part 4 of the 1998 Act by Schedule (Abandonment of offshore installations) to the Energy Act 2016 are to be disregarded.”
(4) For subsection (4A) substitute—
“(4A) The power in subsection (4)—
(a) may (in particular) be exercised to make modifications corresponding to the amendments made by Schedule (Abandonment of offshore installations) to the Energy Act 2016, and(b) is subject to section 30A.””
English Votes for English Laws
(8 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That this House takes note of the Government’s proposals on English Votes for English Laws.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, as always I am pleased to be able to open a debate in your Lordships’ House. The debate this evening is about the Government’s proposals for English votes for English laws. The last time we convened to discuss this subject, I made it clear that I was keen for the House to have a further opportunity to put its views on the record before the other place makes its decisions on the proposals, and that is what we are here to do. Noble Lords will know that the Government are passionate supporters of the Union. We are determined to strengthen it and secure its future, and greater devolution to all parts of the country is part of that plan. It runs alongside measures and the commitments and promises we have made to the people of Scotland and the other powers that we are devolving to other parts of the United Kingdom. We believe that for this settlement to be fair and lasting, it means giving English MPs a decisive say on matters that affect only their constituents.
That is what our proposals for English votes for English laws will do. It will give the English a strong voice on English matters while at the same time respecting the right of every MP from every part of the United Kingdom to debate and vote on every piece of legislation in the House of Commons.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at such an early stage. The noble Baroness will recall that this House divided on a Motion to set up a Joint Committee of the Commons and the Lords. I wonder if she can tell the House what response we have had from the Commons to that proposal.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is quite right and I can assure him that I will come to that matter in my remarks. There is no way that I would seek to ignore that important point.
As I have said, our proposals will give the English a strong voice on English matters and we will respect the right of every MP from every part of the UK to debate and vote on every piece of legislation in the House of Commons. What we would argue is that our approach is pragmatic and proportionate. As noble Lords know, we do not propose to give English MPs a Parliament or the right to initiate legislation alone. What we are proposing instead is simply that where legislation affects England or England and Wales only, it cannot progress against the will of English or English and Welsh MPs. Just as the proposals are pragmatic, so they are flexible. Before the Summer Recess, Members of both Houses called for more time for reflection, and my right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons pledged to take the proposals away and consider them further, and that is what he has done. In that time he has listened to representations from a variety of sources, and has given evidence to and engaged with several committees in the other place. He has now come forward with his revised proposals which take account of the concerns raised. The end result is a workable and sensible model to deliver English votes for English laws.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I have raised the question before of what happens when your Lordships’ House passes an amendment to a Bill which then goes, in the normal way, to the House of Commons and the House of Commons agrees with the amendment, but English, or English and Welsh, Members do not. As I understand the proposals, that would not then become law. However, we have a piece of legislation—a clause, perhaps—that has been passed by both Commons and Lords. What are the implications of the Government’s proposals for the sovereignty of Parliament; and what actually constitutes law?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Your Lordships are asking questions that I am going to cover: I can assure you that this speech will not take me long. We have all had a busy day and want to crack on. The simple answer to the noble and learned Lord is that this House will consider legislation in exactly the same way as we do now, and when the Commons considers our amendments it will send us a message. I will deal with the noble and learned Lord’s point in a moment, when I come to precisely how things are going to work.
This is the fourth time that we have debated these proposals. I do not want to go through them all again in great depth, but I will remind noble Lords of the four main stages where they bring about changes to the work of the other place. The first is the certification process, where Mr Speaker will decide whether these new provisions are engaged when a Bill reaches the House of Commons. In previous debates, some noble Lords were concerned about the burden that that might place on Mr Speaker, as well as the procedure in the Commons. In response, the proposals have been revised to allow him to draw upon the advice of two members of his Panel of Chairs, nominated for the purpose, enabling him to call on assistance where he thinks it is required.
The second significant element of these proposals is the introduction, for Bills which wholly affect England only, of an England-only Committee stage. We consider that to be a simple, effective way to strengthen the voice of English MPs in the legislative process and so that element remains unchanged.
The third is the inclusion of a new step in the legislative process—a legislative Grand Committee—for Bills affecting England, or England and Wales only, before Third Reading. This will ensure that such legislation can pass only where a majority of English, or English and Welsh, MPs agree to it. However, our revised proposals set out explicitly that although only English, or English and Welsh, MPs may vote in legislative Grand Committee proceedings on Report, all MPs will be able to speak and contribute in that Committee. Members of the other place were concerned to make it absolutely clear that that was the case and my right honourable friend the Leader of the Commons has revised the proposals to do just that.
Finally, returning to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, where our amendments are considered in the other place, and the English votes for English laws procedures are engaged, although all Members of Parliament will vote on them where they affect England, or England and Wales only, they will need the support of a double majority in the House of Commons of both the whole House and of English, or English and Welsh, MPs in order to pass. This too remains unchanged.
Under these proposals, MPs from across the United Kingdom will continue to vote at Second Reading, in most Committees, on Report and at Third Reading and when considering Lords amendments.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Would the English issues which this English Grand Committee would deal with include English income tax?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That is something which we have clarified. The English votes for English laws procedures will relate to English tax measures. My noble friend asked this question last time we debated the subject. The amended procedures, which the other place will debate tomorrow, will clarify that English votes for English laws procedures will apply on taxation matters which relate only to England. The way in which MPs consider supply estimates remains unchanged: all MPs will be involved in supply estimates in the same way in the future as they do now. My noble friend rightly made the point about English taxation when we debated this last time, and the greater devolution powers that will be in place for Scotland. We have clarified this for those who quite rightly want to know that that is the case.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What if a Government have to raise taxation through income tax? If we had a Labour Government who relied on Scottish MPs for their majority but did not have a majority in England, would they be unable to get their income tax proposals through the House of Commons because there would, in effect, be a veto from the English MPs? Does that not drive a coach and horses through the whole system?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
What I would like to do, if my noble friend will allow me, is to finish laying out the basic provisions and propositions as they have been put forward by the Government and will be considered tomorrow. I will wind up this debate and will be absolutely clear in my closing remarks.
As well as being pragmatic and proportionate, these proposals are being introduced in a way which allows some flexibility. Should they be approved by the House of Commons tomorrow, they will be subject to a rigorous process of review to make sure they work as intended. That reflects just how much we want to get them right and how the spirit of careful consideration and reflection shown so far will continue as we move forward. That review process will not be a matter just for the House of Commons. I said before the summer—and I say again now—that these proposals are not intended to make any changes to the procedures of this House. The powers we have, and our role in the legislative process, will remain exactly the same. Yet our debates before the summer demonstrated the concerns of noble Lords, which were properly rooted in the desire to preserve the important role that this House plays in the legislative process. I see it as my duty to reflect that within the Government and that is why I am pleased to say that, after consultation with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Commons, he has invited the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House to feed in its views on these changes. I am pleased to hear that that committee has considered the invitation and intends to take up the opportunity. I note that my noble friend Lord Lang will speak this evening and he may want to expand on this in his contribution.
I know that some noble Lords hoped to set up a Joint Committee to examine these issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has highlighted. I recall that there were very strong feelings expressed in your Lordships’ House when we debated this in the summer. The House divided on the matter and that made it clear that noble Lords felt strongly about it. However, I see that an amendment has been tabled in the other place to the proposed English votes for English laws Standing Orders which proposes to agree to the Lords’ message about a Joint Committee. Whether that amendment is selected will be a matter for Mr Speaker, but the Government’s view about the Joint Committee could not be more clear. As I said during our previous debate, we were elected with a clear mandate to take forward English votes for English laws as part of a fair and balanced settlement in the United Kingdom. Just as we are getting on with devolution elsewhere, we believe that we have a clear mandate to get on with English votes for English laws as well. There will never be a perfect solution, which I said when we debated this previously. This matter has been around for a long time. It has been debated for many years and considered in many forms.
As I said in the summer, there has been a lack of political will to see progress in this area. That is no longer the case. This Government want to get on with the job that we have been elected to do. I assure noble Lords that the involvement of the Constitution Committee is a good part of the review process. It is clear that that contribution will be important to the review process taking place next year. No one will be more vigilant than me in ensuring that any potential effects of these proposals on this House will be considered when we look at that review process. I will be mindful of the responsibility on me, not just as a member of Her Majesty’s Government but also as the Leader of this House. I hope very much that I have been able to give noble Lords an opening. I will of course respond at the end of this debate with the assurance that noble Lords are looking for that we will have an opportunity to feed into the process of review in due course. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness and I have to say that I had a sense of déjà vu. I had heard a lot of the content of that speech before because it was similar to previous ones. I do not intend to raise all the constitutional arguments that I have raised before. Other noble Lords are far better qualified that I am to address such issues. Perhaps I may say that the concern of this House is not how these measures will operate in the House of Commons. A lot of the noble Baroness’s speech was devoted to how they affect how legislation is dealt with in the House of Commons. The concern expressed by your Lordships’ House is how it impacts on how we address issues and our role. I do not consider that that was addressed properly.
When the noble Baroness came to the end of her comments, she did not address the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which are of enormous concern. As she knows, any Government have a right to get their legislation through. They are unable to do so if they lose the right over their taxation powers for the UK. I suggest she comes back to that at the end of her comments because it was rather confused. She used the word “clarify” a number of times. She said that the proposal was pragmatic and proportionate, which has left me feeling rather puzzled.
The noble Baroness will recall our conversations in September just prior to the September sitting, for which this debate was originally scheduled. She made a decision to remove the debate on this issue from the September sitting and instead have a debate on the size of your Lordships’ House. We did not concur with the judgment on that but she explained that one of the reasons she did not want this debate during that sitting was because we had not yet had a response from the House of Commons to our request for a Joint Committee to look at this issue. Last Friday, I wrote to the noble Baroness—the letter was delivered to her office—to ask her whether I was right to assume that a response was now available since the debate had been rescheduled for today. I have not had a response. Neither am I aware of there having been any response from the House of Commons to your Lordships’ House on that request. I know that there is a debate tomorrow but that is not the issue. Why are we having the debate today? What has changed since September? Perhaps I can answer my own question: if we are very clear about it, the only reason we have this debate today is because tomorrow there is to be a debate in the House of Commons and the Government have tabled pages and pages of amendments to the Standing Orders to be voted on. Therefore, this convoluted and complicated measure will be voted on in the House of Commons tomorrow, without any response having been received by this House to our request for a Joint Committee.
I note what the noble Baroness said about Graham Allen’s amendment on the setting up of a Joint Committee and how that would inform this House, but that will be tomorrow. We will not have the benefit at all of knowing the view of the House of Commons on this debate. I ask her to explain why the debate was scheduled for today when we have no response from the House of Commons and it is not debating the matter until tomorrow. I do not think that her response was good enough. I presume that she talks and liaises with Chris Grayling, the Leader of the Commons. It is very unfortunate that the Government’s choice of timetable for debates in the House of Commons has not provided the opportunity before this debate to have the debate on the specific issue of whether it would have a Joint Committee with your Lordships’ House to look at the implications. Why could that not have been done before now and before our debate? It would have been very helpful for informing this debate.
As the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Lisvane, have said previously, there is no urgency about these changes. That is what I do not quite understand about why there is this rush for the debate tomorrow. The changes proposed by the Government will not make any difference in this Parliament. It would have been courteous to this House, as well as for good governance, for the Government to have allowed the House of Commons a full debate at our request. That worries me because it appears that we have a Government who do not like scrutiny or challenge, which are very important in ensuring good governance and good legislation.
I would be very happy to be corrected on this and I hope that the noble Baroness can do so but I am pretty sure that the Government will be whipping their MPs to vote against a Joint Committee when this is debated tomorrow. If she can tell me otherwise, I would be very grateful. I would give way instantly to allow her to correct me on whether the Prime Minister is whipping his Members to vote against a Joint Committee with your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Baroness is asking me to provide information on whipping arrangements in the other place. The point I make to the noble Baroness and to the House—I have already made it—is that I was very clear when we debated this matter in the summer that we as a Government did not support a Joint Committee to look at the constitutional implications of these measures. We felt, and still feel, that there is no perfect solution to English votes for English laws, and that it is of great importance and goes to the heart of delivering fairness within the United Kingdom. We have come forward with a set of proposals which build on the many different debates that there have been on this matter. We want to implement them and ensure that they are properly reviewed after they have been tested in real time in this Parliament. That was our position then; it remains our position now. Clearly, it is for the House of Commons to consider the message that we sent and I am pleased that an MP has tabled an amendment in order for the House of Commons to consider that issue. But it is the Government’s position that we do not support a Joint Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I always like to be helpful to the noble Baroness and give way when she asks, although it might have been better for her if I had not given her the opportunity on that occasion. Without being too unkind, she consistently refers to “we” and the Government. I understand that. But in this case—the proposal for the Joint Committee—the “we” in question is her role as Leader of this House. I say that in all sincerity. All I was asking was whether the Government were whipping their Members to vote against a Joint Committee, which would be very helpful to know. It was not a party-political issue when it was raised. It was raised by all parties and no parties.
Lord Tyler (LD)
I wonder whether this is the right moment to remind the House and the Leader of the House that what happened after she made that Statement by the Government about their lack of support for this proposal, was that this House, of which she is a servant, voted by 320 votes to 139 votes to express clear support for that mechanism. Is she now saying that she is ignoring a vote of this House?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am not quite sure that that was an intervention on this speaker. The point I want to make to the noble Baroness is that, when a Motion is passed, it is the property of this body, of which she has the great opportunity to be Leader. I think she is probably not the only person in your Lordships’ House who aspires to that.
I want to go back to this. If there had been such a debate in the House of Commons, it would have given some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that it had been properly considered by Members of the House of Commons, even if it had been rejected. It would have given us some confidence that it had been considered and that it was their considered judgment that they did not think it necessary. If it had been rejected, the House of Lords would have been able to say, “Right, what should we do? What processes should we go through to reassure ourselves that we can properly investigate and assess whether those measures have any impact on how we operate?”. That is all that was being asked. It would have been preferable to work together, for both Houses to examine this, rather than just one House—your Lordships’ House—looking at it alone. A debate in the other place on this issue prior to today would have helped inform our deliberations and discussions this evening. Very important constitutional issues are being raised. If any constitutional issue is rushed when it is not essential or necessary to do so, every opportunity should be taken to consider it properly.
I ask the noble Baroness a very specific question: has she at any time raised the request from the House of Lords for a Joint Committee directly with the Leader of the House of Commons or the Prime Minister, either in Cabinet or in a Cabinet committee? I appreciate that it is not always straightforward and easy. As the noble Baroness indicated, she has a responsibility as a Cabinet member, as a member of the Government and as the Leader of the Government in your Lordships’ House. However, she also, as she has been reminded by noble Lords, has a role as Leader of your Lordships’ House across the parties. I appreciate that it can be difficult; every Leader has to navigate that. However, the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the majority in favour of a Joint Committee was 101.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Sorry, it was 181. I am glad to be corrected on that. When the noble Baroness commented, she said that “some” noble Lords would have preferred a Joint Committee. More than 300 Lords wanted a Joint Committee. It was a massive majority. I do not recall another majority like that. She should have heard those voices loud and clear. All she said at the Dispatch Box today was, “We in the Government don’t think it’s a good idea”. Actually, we in the House of Lords think that it is a very good idea.
The Government are suggesting a significant and unprecedented change to Standing Orders. As a House, we should not comment on the effect of the Government’s proposed changes on the other place other than on how it affects the Government as a whole, not on how it affects debates in the other place. I know that the noble Baroness used the word “clarity”, but there is a distinct lack of clarity as to how it affects us and in what way.
I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said when she said that Chris Grayling, as Leader of the House of Commons, has invited our Constitution Committee to, in I think her exact words, “work with” the Commons Procedure Committee to monitor the working of the new Standing Orders in the first year. What does that mean? If he wants the committees to work together, what is so wrong about having a Joint Committee to look at these issues? If she is talking about looking at how the new Standing Orders work in the first year, can she tell the House which Bills the Government expect to be affected in the first year so that the committees will have an opportunity to evaluate how they will work?
I am disappointed to say this, but this whole saga is becoming symptomatic of the Government’s approach more generally. It is not good government to rush such matters through without proper consideration. I would like to see much greater analysis of the constitutional position, as well as examination of the consequences, intended and unintended, so that any potential problems and difficulties are addressed now. As I said to her before, I would much rather know early on whether there are potential difficulties and problems so that they can be dealt with and addressed, rather than, two or three years down the line, having a constitutional crisis that nobody has thought how to address.
In raising this issue, as in others, it seems that the Government see any opposition as a threat or challenge, not as an opportunity to improve legislation or to get things right. I am convinced that the only reason why your Lordships’ House raised this is because it was concerned that the Government should make good legislation and not get into a constitutional crisis over this. All Governments have the right to get their promised legislation through Parliament. That is an absolute. However, we have seen half-baked and half-formed legislation put before this House. I understand that that happens. I was a government Minister myself; we all know that these things happen. However, my serious concern, which is relevant to this debate and to the wider operations of your Lordships’ House, is that the Government either seek to ignore what we do or overreact to the House of Lords expressing a different view and offering advice or suggestions to the Government.
On Monday evening, we had the Government briefing journalists that if this House voted against the tax credits statutory instrument then the House would be “suspended”. That is nothing short of outrageous and appalling. Parliament does not belong to the Government and the Government cannot dictate how Parliament acts, just as the House of Lords does not and should not dictate to the Government how they act. We know our role—you could say we know our place—but we have a duty and a responsibility sometimes to get the Government to think again or look at something again. There needs to be a much greater understanding of our respective roles and respect for them.
Your Lordships’ House made a simple, moderate request to the House of Commons that a Joint Committee be established to examine any possible effects of the proposed changes they are considering in the other place on the way we operate our business. That does not stop the Government proceeding with the proposals or hinder them from going ahead with them. It merely asks that we work together, in a Joint Committee, to find a way through any potential problems. What could possibly be so dangerous or difficult about that?
I have raised this simple question to the Leader of the House before in a different way: can she tell us what action she has taken to advocate and express the views of this House on this issue of how English votes for English laws affects the House of Lords? Can she tell me what response we have had, in the absence of any response to our request to the Commons so far?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Baroness made a very passionate speech, much of which I agree with, explaining the importance of maintaining the conventions between the two Houses of Parliament. Should that not extend to the convention that we do not vote on secondary legislation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the noble Lord looks at the various documents in your Lordships’ House from the committee on conventions, he will find that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to vote on secondary legislation—not many, I grant him; it is not something that should be done easily, regularly or without great thought. This is the point I am making: these are things that we have to look at, consider and not ignore in looking at our respective roles. I can assure him that we remain signed up to the Salisbury/Addison convention, but we also look for opportunities where we should act within those conventions and the guidance we have to challenge the Government to say, “Think again, look again; you do not always get it right first time”.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I can respond directly to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I served on the Cunningham committee on conventions. There is no such convention on secondary legislation. Indeed, I recall a number of occasions when the Conservatives moved fatal, wrecking amendments to SIs during a Labour Government. His point can be dealt with quite quickly.
Normally my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness would lead for these Benches, but as Members will know he took a leading part on the previous debate on the Energy Bill. Since he has unique experience in this House, the other House and Holyrood—and in government at both ends of the country—I have benefited from his wisdom in preparing my contribution.
I and my colleagues have long argued that we need proposals for devolution within a federal constitutional framework, so we accept that there is a question to answer. We are not people who think that the English question is best not asked. Indeed, we gave evidence to the McKay commission on that basis—I was involved in that myself. We also acknowledge that the Leader of the Commons and the Procedure Committee in the other place have attempted to meet some of the concerns expressed in debates both in this House and in the other place during July. However, a number of other, very fundamental concerns remain. I shall touch on them speedily. Whether this is the only or best way to resolve them is still a matter for debate. I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I will return to this point later.
Meanwhile, we should dispel some of the myths that grew up during the summer and were expressed in your Lordships’ House. First, there was an illusion that somehow these proposals affect only the House of Commons, are entirely discrete to that House and are appropriately dealt with by a simple introduction of new Standing Orders. Frankly, that has been blown to smithereens, not least in your Lordships’ House but also in the other place. I illustrate that by the fact that the revised proposals from the Leader of the Commons have now expanded the consideration of certified Motions or amendments relating to Lords amendments and other messages from one page to two. The proposed Standing Order 83O—not 830—which the Commons will consider tomorrow, is now very extensive. Page 27 of the new Explanatory Memorandum contains this firm statement:
“Paragraphs (2) to (6) ensure that English, or English and Welsh, MPs have the opportunity to veto Lords amendments that may make changes to the bill or parts of the bill that relate to England or England and Wales”.
Colleagues will recall that we were told there was no veto. It is now very firmly there. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has already indicated, this could relate to some extremely important decisions of Parliament. But what this does is to provide for a veto by a subset of that House. For the first time, one House of Parliament is to be overruled by a devolved mechanism in the other. Members of your Lordships’ House will note that there is now no hesitation in using the word “veto”. Members of the Government are fond of quoting the core importance of the sovereignty of the full Westminster Parliament—that is, the full House of Lords and the full House of Commons. Here we have an example of where a subset has a veto over the full Westminster Parliament. If that does not raise important constitutional issues, what does? Indeed, perhaps we should reflect that, topically, Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont could ask: “What are the implications for us of this change?”. That brings me to my second major concern.
These proposals alter the delicate balance of power and responsibility between the two Houses of Parliament. Ministers have suggested—and it has been suggested again this evening—that in addition to monitoring and review undertaken by the Commons Procedure Committee at the end of this process, not in preparation for it, our own Constitution Committee might be involved in some way. I am the first to respect the work of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, and his colleagues on our Constitution Committee. I just ask: what would happen if there were two quite separate investigations, monitoring and reviews of these processes, and they came to different conclusions? What do we expect will happen then? The Constitution Committee of our House reports to our House. The Procedure Committee reports to the House of Commons. What happens if they are not clearly in complete agreement? The noble Baroness has said that there will be a rigorous attempt to look at what has happened. I suggest that this is just a recipe for duplication, confusion and conflict between the two Houses.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is present. I am not sure what his new title is. He and I have sat on a number of Joint Committees. I think that they are an extremely important vehicle for the two Houses to reach sensible conclusions on all sorts of matters. Here is a classic case for this. The case for a Joint Committee of Peers and MPs proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and endorsed by a huge majority of your Lordships on 21 July, to which I have already referred, is clearly the sensible parliamentary way to approach this issue, with the whole of Parliament in mind, and to avoid the confusions that could otherwise occur.
As has already been said, tomorrow MPs will be invited to respond positively to the Motion of 21 July in your Lordships’ House, which was carried by a large majority. Sadly, this will not take the form of a proper response from the Leader of the Commons on behalf of the Government. No doubt the Leader of this House will be able to explain in her response at the end of this debate why we have not had the courtesy of a proper response from the other House. Instead, as has again been referred to, there will be an amendment endorsed by, I gather, several Members of several parties. I have counted six who have signed up to this amendment in the name of Mr Graham Allen, which reads as follows,
“this House concurs with the Lords Message of 21 July, that it is expedient that a joint committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the constitutional implications of the Government’s revised proposals to change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in order to give effect to English Votes for English Laws, and that the committee should report on the proposals by 30 March 2016”.
That is not kicking the issue into the long grass but is a very sensible approach, not least, of course, because the Government have already said that there is no huge urgency for this. They are not anticipating in the immediate future that there will be any Bill which raises these particular concerns and different issues for different parts of the United Kingdom. That brings me to my third point.
This is a classic case of the dangers of piecemeal, ad hoc attempts to deal with apparent anomalies in our only partially written and codified constitution. Remove one anomaly and you create a potential host of others. If any Member of your Lordships’ House still thinks, after listening today, that this can be resolved in isolation, I suggest they look back at the debates in your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the other place in July which contain a wealth of practical experience. I refer to just a few who contributed in your Lordships’ House—the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord Lisvane, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan—I hope I have pronounced that name right—and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, all of whom have a right to be heard by the Government, given their past responsibilities in Parliament and in government. If any Member still has further doubts, they should read the contribution of the former Attorney-General, Mr Dominic Grieve, in the debate in the Commons on 15 July. That leads me to my fourth point.
There is such a head of steam now for a constitutional convention of some sort. I am not suggesting that there is any one model. It is supported on all sides of your Lordships’ House and is evidenced by the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed. Surely the Government must agree to see these proposals in their wider context. I confess that in the past I have been something of a sceptic of the sort of all-purpose constitutional convention—put it all in the pot, stir it around and hope consensus comes out at the other end—but the confusion over these proposals over the past few months surely adds strength to the argument heard regularly from the other side of the House that too many of these ad hoc piecemeal attempts to update our constitution are neither coherent or comprehensive. My noble friend Lord Purvis, whose service here and in Holyrood, and in the Scottish body politic generally, gives him special experience, will deal with this aspect in more detail later.
Therefore, I believe that there is some urgency now for agreeing to set up some form of constitutional dialogue which looks at the relationship between the different parts of the union and their various political institutions. I accept that to make it a success we should be clear about how that convention—whatever form it might take—should begin its work. There are all too often false parallels drawn between vague ideas about a constitutional convention for the United Kingdom and what happened in Scotland in 1996, but, as both my colleagues here will confirm, the Scottish convention was a process which started with some measure of agreement on the outcomes that the parties wanted. Indeed, the Conservative and Scottish National parties refused to take part precisely because neither would commit to that level of agreement, so we should seek some agreement on principles before setting up a convention. It is, of course, no coincidence that many Conservative Members are now ardent advocates of EVEL, when so much of their support comes from England, while, on the other hand, it is no particular coincidence that Labour Members are more prone to cavil about EVEL, when so much of their historic support was in Scotland. Therefore, a public element of any such discussion, or any other form of widespread consultation, must involve putting these political prejudices on a sort of jury trial. It could then be hoped that the outcome would command public confidence.
But if the Government are to achieve any consensus—indeed, any unanimity—in their own ranks, they cannot continue to adopt a narrow, partisan, piecemeal approach to these great issues. Today, I have reread Command Paper 8969, The Implications of Devolution for England, introduced by the now much regretted departed Leader of the Commons, William Hague, who claimed:
“Both the parties to the coalition wish to continue this major process towards decentralisation in England”.
The present proposals do not meet that challenge.
I note that my right honourable and honourable friends in the Commons have today tabled a further amendment to the Leader’s Motion as follows:
“This House believes that a constitutional convention should be established to report by the end of 2016 to ensure the legitimate demand for English voices to be heard on English matters is delivered within the context of a carefully considered settlement for the UK, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, England and the authorities participating in the Government’s devolution agenda”.
That should surely be the context for these discussions, not a little bit of ad hocery. It is certain that the proposals that will go before the other House tomorrow simply do not rise to the challenge of the White Paper of Mr Hague, as he then was. As a result, they will satisfy nobody. Those who favour an English Parliament—with the inevitable English Executive that would be required to implement its decisions—will attack them as a weak and weedy bureaucratic jungle. Incidentally, I do not know how many Members of your Lordships’ House have looked at the revised proposals but it is significant that the Leader of the Commons has not dared to produce a revised flow chart this time—I think it would look like somebody’s inadequate attempt at knitting. Those others, like many Members of your Lordships’ House, who identify constitutional hostages to fortune will plead for a more considered, comprehensive and consensual approach.
I think many Members of your Lordships’ House will join us in appealing to Ministers to listen to your House; to agree to a Joint Committee to examine these proposals more fully before experimenting with the current draft; to incorporate a sunset clause in the eventual changes to the Standing Orders; and, most important of all, to accept in principle the case for some form of convention to discuss the future of our part-written constitution in this era of post-devolution settlement.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the Leader for having missed the first moment or two of her speech. I contribute to this debate more in sorrow than in anger—but with an element of anger. The Leader promised that the House should have an opportunity to express views. This debate is providing that opportunity; I welcome that. What I do not welcome is that the Government are going ahead with their Motion for changes in the Standing Orders tomorrow, when they will hardly have had the opportunity to read in Hansard what has been said in this evening’s debate. Nothing could make it more clear that the Government do not propose to take any serious account of your Lordships’ views on this matter.
As has been pointed out, on 21 July this House passed by a very large majority a Motion inviting the Commons to set up a Joint Committee to look into the constitutional aspects of these proposals. We have not had a reply from the Commons to that proposal. As she has said, the Leader made it very clear in that debate on 21 July that the Government were opposed to a Joint Committee. But this is not just a matter for the Government. This was a message from the House of Lords, which the House of Lords passed by a large majority, to the House of Commons—and the House of Commons has not replied to it. The Leader said that such a reply might be provided tomorrow as a result of the House of Commons voting on an amendment put down by Mr Graham Allen, a Back-Bencher. But that is not adequate. The Leader herself said that the amendment might not be selected by the Speaker. The House of Commons should have replied to this proposal from the House of Lords. It is a gross discourtesy that it has not and that the Government have not made sure that it replied.
There is a precedent for the House of Commons to go ahead without taking any account of a Motion from the House of Lords proposing a Joint Committee. The precedent was in 1911. Not for 104 years have the Government proceeded without taking any notice of a proposal such as this from the House of Lords. Why are the Government treating your Lordships’ House with such disregard? Mr Grayling has made clear his reasons on a couple of occasions. In reply to a question in the other place on 15 October, he said that,
“this is a debate about the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and it would be quite a big step for us to take a move towards inviting the House of Lords to rule, consider and act on our own Standing Orders”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/15; col. 506.]
That is an obtuse answer and I am afraid that it is deliberately obtuse. These proposals are about the constitutional relationship between different parts of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, that is a matter on which the Government should proceed with extreme caution—and they are not doing so.
However, blessed is he who repents. We hear tonight that the Leader of the House of Commons has asked the chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee to take a part in monitoring the constitutional aspects of the operation of the Standing Orders. The Leader has played some part in achieving that repentance—but it is merely satisfactory as far as it goes, and the discourtesy to this House has not been removed.
The Government propose to go ahead tomorrow regardless with their changes to the Standing Orders. I have said from the outset that I welcome the Government’s seizing the nettle of the West Lothian question. I advised the Conservative Party’s task force under the right honourable Kenneth Clarke, which proposed one of the three solutions rehearsed in the White Paper of Mr Hague, as he then was, at the end of the previous Parliament. That solution was better, in my view, than the one now put forward. I note that in addition to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about a diagram that would look like knitting, even the Procedure Committee in the other place described the Government’s proposals with adjectives such as “complex”, “rococo” and “over-engineered”. For that reason, the Select Committee had great reservations about them.
The Government have not explained why a simpler solution has not been proposed. My objection to the Government’s proposals is, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, that for the first time it gives a veto to a group of MPs in the Commons—English or English and Welsh MPs—over legislation that Parliament as a whole wishes to pass. That is unprecedented. The proposal of Kenneth Clarke’s Democracy Task Force put it the other way round. It gave English or English and Welsh MPs the opportunity to amend a Bill in Committee and on Report and then the whole House the final say on accepting or rejecting the result. That seems both simpler and more in line with our parliamentary traditions than a veto.
Why does the difference matter, apart from a veto being a constitutional innovation? I suggest it matters for this reason, among others. If a veto is to be given to English MPs, or English and Welsh MPs, over legislation affecting only their areas, is a similar veto to be given to Scottish MPs on legislation in the Westminster Parliament that affects only Scotland? There is such legislation. An example which was brought to my notice is the Partnerships (Prosecution) (Scotland) Act 2013. If such a veto is not going to be given to Scottish MPs, why not? What is sauce for the English and Welsh goose should be sauce for the Scottish gander. If the Government do not give similar rights to Scottish MPs to those that they propose to take for English and Welsh MPs, they are giving Scotland a legitimate grievance. In the current state of the union, that is a dangerous and unwise thing to do.
There are many other questions about the Government’s proposals, which other noble Lords have raised. The Hansard Society has produced a paper entitled Five Early Questions about them. Why are the Government rushing into these proposals without waiting for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the final report of the Procedure Committee in another place to give their advice on these issues? It is very unwise of the Government to be doing so. Their answer is, “Let’s give our proposals a try and review them in a year’s time”. We have heard that sort of argument before. It is like saying, “We will jump over the cliff and grab a bush on the way down so that we can review our decision about whether we were right to do so”.
As has been pointed out, there is no need for this impetuous rush. The current position is that there is both an overall majority for the Government, and a majority in England and Wales for the Government, in the House of Commons. The Government can easily afford to allow their proposals to be properly considered by both Houses of Parliament. They are acting like a bull in a china shop—if that is not an inappropriate analogy in this particular week. However, it is clear that whatever we say tonight, the Government will push ahead with their proposals in the Commons tomorrow. There is only one chance that prudence will prevail and that this House’s invitation to the House of Commons to set up a Joint Committee will be adopted, which is that the House of Commons passes Mr Allen’s amendment tomorrow and accepts our proposal for a Joint Committee. The matter is now in their hands.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not enter into the heat of this debate this evening, tempted though I was by the intriguing announcement by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that he has discovered that rare nugget, a new Scottish grievance—I thought we had mined them all pretty well. I will not even rise to that particular fly because there are other Scottish Members of this House to speak later, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for example, does grievance far better than I can.
However, I thought it would be helpful to the House if I sought to explain the context of the Constitution Committee’s proposed involvement in monitoring, for a period, the operation of the reformed Standing Orders for the other place, which I understand are to be brought forward tomorrow—assuming, of course, that they will be passed. I do so because it is an unusual matter for our committee to become involved in, and it is not a task that we would have sought. Normally, we never comment on the internal procedures of the other place. However, when one is expressly asked by the Leader of the House of Commons to undertake this task—reflecting, I suppose, the fact that this House had sought, through the Motion it passed in the summer, to be involved in further scrutiny and consideration of EVEL through a Joint Committee with the other place—that changes things. It would, I believe, be wrong to refuse such a request. So in the expectation that the Joint Committee will not now materialise—and conditional on that and on the other place approving the proposals of the Leader of the House of Commons—our committee agreed at its meeting this morning to accept the task. The Procedure Committee and the Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs in the other place will also, I understand, be involved, although separately from our committee.
We will not of course be involved in assessing or commenting on the merits either of the amended Standing Orders or indeed of the policy of English votes for English laws itself—that is not our function. We value the independent, non-partisan nature of our all-party committee. We will, however, proceed with our inquiry over the next few months in our usual way—calling for evidence and interviewing experts and practitioners, including, very possibly, Members of your Lordships’ House—as the new arrangements start to deliver legislation or other business to this House through the use of EVEL. We shall seek to identify any constitutional implications and anomalies that may emerge and, in our usual way, we will draw them to the House’s attention as deserving of further consideration in a report that we will publish thereafter. I hope that my giving that background and clarifying what I see as our role in this business has been helpful to the House.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, first, I will say that I understand the strategic objective of the Government, which is to enable a fairer system of sharing decision-making throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, the statement that was made by the Prime Minister, with the support of the other leaders, the week before the referendum—which in my view had no purpose and no effect—made the discussion of these issues inevitable. That is my starting point, but I have grave concerns about the Government’s approach in addressing those objectives, especially the political implications. I will put my concerns as simply as I can.
The Government are rushing this issue when there is no need to do so. They have five years ahead of them—if you believe some of the more cynical commentators, perhaps an extended length of time in government even beyond that. As result of rushing, they are avoiding the reflection and consultation that are necessary, in absence of which they will inevitably produce a flawed solution. This in turn will lead to dispute and to grievances where none existed before. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, grievance is the platform on which the Scottish nationalists produced almost every strategic objective they have. But if he believes that it is not possible for them to discover new grievances, I say to him that we should not help them in that task by mass-producing potential grievances out of a flawed scheme such as this. That is the politics of it. If I am right, in attempting to solve one political dilemma—the West Lothian question—the Government will introduce another more dangerous one, satisfying neither the English nor the Scottish, and further prising apart the union. In short, where they set out to establish a level playing field, they are actually laying a potential minefield, politically. That is my concern.
I will just deal with a couple of those issues. I cannot for the life of me understand the haste with which the Government are trying to rush this through. Indeed, if anything, they are increasingly dealing with the issues presented in an offhand fashion. Several other noble Lords have mentioned this as well. I welcome the involvement of the Constitution Committee but the reality is that, a few months ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, this House voted by an overwhelming majority for the consideration by the Commons of a Joint Committee on these issues. That would have been a wise course in my view, yet the Government did not even deign to respond to that advice from this Chamber, as has been pointed out. I would like to believe that they were too busy. I would like to believe that it was delayed in the post. I would like to believe that there was some serious reason why they found it impossible over those few months to respond to us. I suspect, however, that their position was more influenced by the old adage that it is easier to seek forgiveness after the event than to ask permission before it.
Everything that the Government have done suggests to me that that is not only discourteous but extremely unwise, because consideration of this issue would benefit from the wisdom and experience of those of us who have for 40 to 50 years been through the question of the British constitution and the politics of nationalism —including English nationalism.
Lord Tyler
As the former Leader of the other place, will the noble Lord confirm that the Government could redeem themselves now if they ensured, as they are in a position to do, that Mr Graham Allen’s amendment, which is supported right across all other parts of the House, is not only tabled but accepted for debate in the House tomorrow and they persuade people to vote for it?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
Indeed, that would be extremely helpful. It is no coincidence that the potential alibi has been presented tonight, but we may well discover tomorrow that it is a non-existent alibi.
I make no personal attacks on the Leader of the House. She assured us tonight that she would be ever vigilant in monitoring what was going on. I believe her. I recall that some 50 years ago, we had a Scottish goalkeeper called Frank Haffey who was ever vigilant. He carefully monitored the ball as it entered the Scottish net nine times in a game against England. There is a difference between monitoring and vigilance on the one hand and action on the other. The action is necessary to address the questions that arise.
I will raise only a couple of the questions on the current proposals tonight. The first is on stage 1, the certification procedure, which was mentioned by the Leader of the House. The new procedure is intended to apply to government Bills, individual provisions and secondary legislation which are certified by the Speaker as containing English and Welsh provisions only. Under the revised Standing Orders, the Speaker of the House will have an important role in certifying whether a Bill or part of a Bill relates exclusively to England or to England and Wales.
I have to say that that is an enormous, onerous responsibility. In the interests of good governance and public transparency, it would seem appropriate that the Speaker in that case should be obliged by Standing Orders to publish the criteria, the principles and the legal advice that he will apply in reaching such determinations. However, no such provision is presently made. Anyone who is experienced in deciding such issues from a Scottish point of view knows that they are extremely complicated and will be more complicated when it comes to deciding on this provision.
On the question of whether the Speaker has the necessary advisory resources to address such a task, I have grave doubts. I have to say that they are not dispelled by the most recent revisions to the proposals, which were mentioned by the Leader of the House. She mentioned the revised proposals after consultation on the question of certification: how the resources and expertise available to the Speaker would be enhanced. Let me just read from the briefing on what the proposals amount to. I will not go through all the clauses, but it states:
“These new additions enable the Speaker”—
it says here with authority—
“to consult two backbench MPs to assist him in the process of certifying bills, clauses and schedules as relating exclusively to England or England and Wales, should he wish to do so”.
So the action after the consultation on the vital issue of resources is to extend to the Speaker the facility of the advice of two Back-Bench MPs—should he wish to use it. Well, there you are. We can all expect that that will add definitive expertise to the Speaker to make such decisions. That does not hearten me that the Government have learned from anything that has been said.
Secondly, on the test, of course revised Standing Order 83J sets out the consideration and certification to be given by the Speaker but, as I said, it is not an easy task to determine that a Bill, clause or schedule relates exclusively to England or to England and Wales and is within devolved competence. Whether a Bill applies only to England is not determined simply by looking at the extent provisions. It requires a significant constitutional and legal assessment of the measure, how it may operate in practice and what its legal effect may be.
At present, the proposal contains two tests: a territorial test and a content test. A number of serious questions arise even before we consider the omission, which is the purpose test, because the purpose is a third area that ought to be an essential element in deciding whether or not the proposals apply. Let me ask the question simply: would it include an English Bill or clause analogous to a Bill, or a clause which concerns a reserved matter but which applies, whether exclusively or not, to Scotland? The example was already given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, of the Partnerships (Prosecution)(Scotland) Act 2013. Would it exclude all Bills or clauses which, under the current definition of the Sewel convention, would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, such as the Scotland Bill, which affects the competence of the Scottish Parliament or Government?
I confess that I am not a lawyer. I am not complaining about that, nor am I boasting about it, but as far as I can see the revised Standing Orders do not clarify those essential questions, nor do they set out the criteria and principles by reference to which the Speaker will determine whether a Bill or clause falls within the proposals. As I said, these are elementary questions which are outside the omission of the purpose test, which is essential, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, outlined in our July debate.
The Government have obviously decided that it is worth countenancing all those risks: that they will lay the minefield and then we will all walk through it for years to come. I hope that they will weigh those risks heavily, because it is at least questionable whether the game is worth the candle as regards these proposals.
A House of Commons Library standard note of 4 December entitled England, Scotland, Wales: MPs & Voting in the House of Commons observed the statistics on voting on Bills in the House of Commons. Of approximately 3,600 Divisions between June 2001 and September 2014, a total of 22—that is, 0.6%—would have concluded differently had the votes of Scottish MPs not been counted. It may be proper to address this question, as I said at the beginning, but to rush ahead with the present proposals and all the risks when there is no major practical problem to face on the basis of those statistics seems irresponsible for a Government who supposedly stand for the retention of the United Kingdom. You cannot discuss the constitutional aspects of this without the context of the politics. Do not wittingly mass-produce grievances which could otherwise be avoided.
I will not say much about scrutiny but, at the very least, the Government should provide for the utmost scrutiny of the operation of this through the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons. That should be done in a more formal fashion. Even before that the Government should be willing to embark on the widest possible consultation so that these proposals are placed within the wider constitutional objectives.
The Government may consider all these matters trifling details. They may consider them small mines in the minefield, but their potential number is so huge that it will produce the political basis for the grievance politics of the SNP and friction between England and Scotland over an extended period of years. If we are going to address the question of fairness to the English, no one in this House would object, but we need to do it in the context of the wider constitutional settlement and the political implications of what we are doing. I hope that even at this stage the Government may be persuaded to change their approach because the constitution of this country, the country itself—the United Kingdom—and its unity deserve better than we are being provided with at present.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, the principle of EVEL was not only a specific manifesto commitment of this Government; it appears to command widespread popular support. Like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I support the principle, but I support it only if it is implemented in an appropriate way. That surely must be by way of primary legislation after full debate, in both Houses, of all the various matters that we have brought up today, not merely by rule changes in the House of Commons, as is now proposed. To create, as the Government propose, two classes of Members of Parliament, one with more extensive powers than the other—essentially a power of veto over the other in certain circumstances—is a measure of such obvious constitutional importance and sensitivity as to demand legislation.
There are basically two different ways to resolve the long-outstanding West Lothian question to reflect the fact that, logically, in devolved areas of law, Scottish MPs should have a lesser input than English MPs or, as the case may be, English and Welsh MPs, given that legislation in these devolved areas has no effect—put aside the possibility of some purely incidental effect through the operation of the Barnett formula—on their constituents. Scottish MPs’ constituents’ interests in these devolved areas are taken care of by Members of the Scottish Parliament. One possible approach is that which has been advocated in earlier debates by, as I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and, I think, also the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Cormack. It is based on the Irish precedent and is to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to reflect the fact that, because of a measure of devolution, their constituents have fewer interests being decided by the Westminster Parliament. The intended reduction of Westminster MPs from 650 to 600 and the existing requirement for a new Boundary Commission report surely offer a good opportunity to deal with the problem in that way. Clearly, as in the past in the case of Northern Ireland devolution, this would need, as it attracted in Ireland, primary legislation.
The alternative way of implementing EVEL is essentially the one now proposed by the Government—although inappropriately proposed by way of rule change—limiting in some ways the powers of Scottish MPs in respect of such legislation as following devolution will apply only in England or, as the case may be, in England and Wales. For simplicity’s sake, let us just call the dichotomy England/Scotland. Logically, on this approach, Scottish MPs’ powers should surely be limited no less in respect of their ability to vote down fresh legislative proposals affecting only England—for example the proposed modification of the existing fox hunting laws, as was proposed earlier in the year—than in respect of their ability to promote legislation which is otherwise opposed by a majority of non-Scottish MPs. The rule change currently proposed would limit Scottish MPs’ powers only in this latter respect. In other words, it would give non-Scottish MPs what effectively amounts to a veto over legislation proposed by a majority which is dependent on the votes of Scottish MPs. Perhaps that is because the proposal was originally devised in order to combat what seemed during the election campaign to be—as some certainly saw it—the threat of a Labour Government dependent upon support from Scottish MPs. It must be recognised that the current proposal would not enable a Government to pass legislation which Scottish MPs could help to defeat. There seem to be obvious pros and cons to each of these two basic ways of limiting the powers of Scottish MPs in respect of devolved matters—respectively, reducing the number of such MPs or reducing their ability as Members to influence certain new legislation. The latter method is more nuanced and targeted to particular cases, but it is of course hugely more complicated.
The latest Cabinet Office document from October 2015 extends to no fewer than 31 pages, seeking to set out and explain the proposed revised changes to the House of Commons rules. Indeed, this scheme still leaves a number of unresolved problems, many of them identified today, including of course that canvassed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I wonder whether the answer to his question is that if these changes are indeed achievable simply by a rule change, as proposed, then a Government in the position that he postulates would simply change the rules to revert to where they are, so we would not at all have the permanence that we would hope to get with primary legislation.
For my part, because of these obligations and difficulties, I prefer the solution, imperfect though it is in turn, of limiting the numbers of Scottish MPs, as happened in Northern Ireland. Crucially, though, whichever of these solutions is adopted, it really should be by way of legislation. I, too, deplore the fact that the Government seem simply to have discourteously presented us with a fait accompli. In common with others, I hope that the House of Commons may in fact thwart the Government’s desires in that tomorrow.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, this is probably going to be the only occasion in my lifetime when I can get up and say that the person who has just made the speech that I was going to make is a former distinguished member of the judiciary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has made all the points that I would have made. Indeed, so has everyone else; I agree with all the speeches that have been made so far.
I confess to a sense of weariness because I am running out of new things to say. I am also coming to the conclusion that it does not matter a damn what I say or what this House does; it is just going to be ignored and the Government will charge on regardless. The fact that it is more than 100 years since the House of Commons failed to respond to a Motion from this place—and a Motion that was passed by such a majority—is a scandal of the first order. I just wonder why we are here and what we are doing at 8.40 pm. What is the point?
The annunciator says, “The Government’s proposals on English votes for English laws”. These proposals are not about English votes for English laws; if you want English votes for English laws, you need to set up a Scottish Parliament. I am sorry, I meant an English Parliament. Of course, by setting up a Scottish Parliament, we provoked the situation that we are in today. However, English votes for English laws imply an English Parliament, an English First Minister and an English Executive. So if the point of all this is to satisfy the feelings of resentment that have occurred in England because of the existence of the Scottish Parliament, a false prospectus is being sold to the British people and to the English people.
For me, it is really quite weird that a Conservative Government with a majority—in the past I could have blamed the Liberals, but this is a unionist Government—are bringing forward proposals of this kind. If on the annunciator we had proposals for “Scottish votes for Scottish laws”, I suspect that people would be a little more careful in considering the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole—a point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others.
The last time we debated this, my noble friend the Leader of the House denied that there was an English veto—but the word “veto” has now been accepted. I would be opposed to a Scottish veto in the United Kingdom Parliament, and I can see what Mr Salmond and his colleagues will argue when this goes through: that the Sewel convention—which we probably need to rename, in the circumstances—should actually be enshrined in statute, and that the Westminster Parliament should not be able to do anything that would be covered by the Sewel convention. That would be a very retrograde step.
I have been sitting for some weeks now on the Economic Affairs Committee; we have had extra sessions. We are taking evidence on the implications of devolution for the fiscal and other arrangements of the United Kingdom as a whole. I have to tell the House—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is also on the committee, will confirm this—that the advice we are getting from academics has on occasion reduced the committee to laughter because of the incoherence with which all these constitutional changes are coming together, and the inability of our expert witnesses to give assurances.
For example, one distinguished professor pointed out, on the subject of the impact of the changes that are proposed in the forthcoming Scotland Bill:
“If you do that, changes to English taxes affect the Scottish block grant, which I think is appropriate. However, if that is the case, you cannot possibly tell Scottish MPs that they are not allowed to vote on English income taxes, because there is no such thing as an English income tax that does not affect the Scottish block grant”.
In other words, the combination of the new powers being given to the Scottish Parliament, the retention of the Barnett formula and this new proposal to allow an English vote on English income tax will create a problem if you have English votes for English laws, in so far as the Scottish MPs who are not allowed to vote on English income tax will be able to say, “But that affects the block grant and so the Barnett formula, and therefore we are being disenfranchised”. That is a very important grievance of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Reid, suggested.
I have been trying to think of an analogy to explain the Government’s piecemeal approach to constitutional reform and the difficulties and complexities it is creating. It is a bit like having an Uber driver without a sat-nav. We are going from one destination to another, not sure of where we are trying to reach and without the road map that is required—which could be produced if we had had a constitutional convention, and which might be available if we had agreed to a Joint Committee of both Houses to deal with some of the anomalies that would have arisen.
For example, my old constituency in Stirling, which I used to represent, is now represented by a Scottish nationalist MP. I have had him here for tea in the House so that he could be made aware of the excellent work that we do here, and a very fine chap he is. However, under these proposals, we will get to a situation in which he is elected and not allowed to vote on matters on which I am allowed to vote as an unelected Member of this Chamber. I feel a bit uncomfortable about that—it seems slightly anomalous. A lot of my former constituents who went to the polls to get me out—albeit that was many years ago; those of them who are still alive—might feel a sense of grievance that I am voting on matters which their elected Member is excluded from voting on.
I therefore say to the Leader of the House: I know that we do not have much of a majority here, but is the proposal that I should abstain on all these matters—that all Peers who come from Scotland should not vote on matters which have been determined in the other place? There is no such thing as a Scottish Peer—constitutionally that is right—but try telling that to people in Scotland if these proposals go ahead: you will get short shrift. That may be a narrow debating point. But we are faced with a situation where, in Scotland, thanks in part to the way we fought the general election campaign, almost all the seats are now occupied by one party, which every day sets out to find a reason why Scotland is being damaged by its relationship with the United Kingdom as a whole.
I do not want to repeat arguments that were made by others or that I put previously. However, I recall that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd—who is not in her place—whom I voted for as Speaker, who did a fantastic job in the House of Commons and who has a very good understanding, warned about the difficulties that would be created for the Speaker. My noble friend says that this has been addressed, because he will be able to talk to two other MPs. What happens if those elected MPs have different and perhaps opposite views? The Speaker will have to take a decision, and the very position that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, referred to, of putting the Speaker in a position where they are politicised, comes into being.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree, but it is even worse than that, because it is clear that the certification decision that the Speaker is required to take will be justiciable. That seems to make an enormous change, which will affect not just the House of Commons but the constitution as a whole.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I remember the days when the noble Lord used to tell me what to do at European Council meetings. As always, he sees the wood when I could only see the trees. That is a very important constitutional change. It is a diminution of the status of the High Court of Parliament.
All the issues may seem to be anorak issues for constitutionalists but I say to my noble friend that this is not something of little importance, and it is a matter of great distress to me that the House of Commons should rush ahead with it by amending Standing Orders. In an earlier intervention, I pointed out the implications for income tax and what would happen under a Labour Government. I suppose that, as was said earlier, if things were done just by Standing Orders, then if a Labour Government had a majority in the House of Commons, they could simply alter the Standing Orders to remove the position that had been established in order to create a constitutional balance as a result of the extra powers being given to devolved institutions. That is wholly and absolutely unsatisfactory, especially in the context of a situation where there is no consensus among the parties as to how this could be achieved.
That is my final point, which I think I made on a previous occasion. I really do think that constitutional change should carry consensus. If we proceed on the basis that we think it would be a good wheeze to make a constitutional change or that it might advantage one party or another, then other parties will do the same when they are in power. As a result, people will lose faith in the integrity of the institution and it will be greatly damaged.
The Constitution Committee is going to look at these proposals and apparently we will have a year to consider whether they work—although, given our legislative programme, quite how we are going to do that remains to be seen. Will my noble friend consider once again whether it would be a good idea to set up some kind of body—we do not have to call it a constitutional convention—to look at all these issues? Will she also look at the implications of the Scotland Bill, which will be coming to this House, and how that will be affected by English votes for English laws, as they are being dubbed? All the evidence that I have seen indicates that there will be real and serious problems, which have not been resolved and which will do great damage to the relationships between the countries of the United Kingdom.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I had better not start by saying that I agree with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, because we will both then get attacked by the cybernats. Incidentally, that is a word that I coined, although the Oxford English Dictionary has not yet got round to including it. I keep telling these people who tweet obnoxious things from time to time that even a Tory can get it right sometimes, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has it absolutely right today.
I want to start off by not disappointing the noble Lord, Lord Lang: I have a wee grievance, which he anticipated I might raise. It is a great pity—I am very glad to see the government Chief Whip here because this refers to him—that we are discussing a major constitutional issue such as this at this hour, following a major debate on energy. This is a matter of great importance. It was listed on our business programme as being the subject of a whole day’s debate, but for some reason or another the Government took it off the agenda and put in a debate on the size of the House. I was here for that debate and it was the most useless waste of a debate that we have ever had. We could have had a proper debate on English votes for English laws.
The Leader of the House said that the whole purpose of this debate is to inform the debate that the House of Commons will be having tomorrow. I am not sure how that will happen. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that Members of the other place will be able to read Hansard. However, I do not see all 650 of them scurrying up in the morning to get copies of our Hansard and reading them assiduously. I noticed that my honourable friend Chris Bryant was here earlier for a large part of the debate, so he will be well informed, but perhaps the Leader of the House can tell us how she, as Leader, is going to make sure that the House of Commons is informed in its debate tomorrow about what has happened here today. If not, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, we will begin to feel very frustrated and wonder whether we are wasting our time.
However, there is genuine concern. It has been coined by some people, because of Tam Dalyell’s concern, the West Lothian question. I call it the English democratic deficit. I really sympathise with people in England; whereas we in Scotland, along with the Welsh and the Northern Irish have had genuine devolution—it is nice to see the Welsh nationalists here—the English have not. Many years ago, my noble friend Lord Prescott suggested the setting up of English regional government. That was one of the right solutions but before its time, and he was not able, because of other Secretaries of State, to give it the right kind of powers. However, that is something that needs to be looked at properly. As so many people have said, we do not need to do it in this piecemeal way.
The Leader of the House said that a grievance had existed for many years. There is certainly a grievance, and it has existed for about 16 years, since 1999. But for more than 300 years, peculiarly Scottish legislation—on Scottish education, the Scottish health service and Scottish local government—was decided here by English votes. It was English votes that decided the poll tax. I am sorry to find a little bit of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—although perhaps it is a good thing—but it was he and his colleagues who imposed the poll tax on Scotland against our will and a year earlier than in England. Look at local government reorganisation. To take one small example, the majority of Scottish Members wanted an all-Ayrshire authority, and yet it was imposed upon us to have three local authorities for Ayrshire.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord will recall that the poll tax was created in Scotland as a direct result of Scottish legislation that required a revaluation, which sent valuations sky high, and was driven by Scotland. If it was imposed on anyone, it was imposed on England in order to sort out a Scottish problem. I am very distressed that the noble Lord should be using nationalist arguments at this stage, given that his party has been wiped out north of the border.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That was the argument that the noble Lord put forward at the time. It did not go down very well then and it is not going down very well now. However, I am glad that we have disagreed, because that will show the cybernats that we do not agree on every occasion.
We need to look at how we can solve the English democratic deficit. Incidentally, one thing I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on is that it is going to be difficult for us as Scottish Peers. There is a Scottish Peers Association, and all of us who are Scottish Peers are members of it. We have a territorial designation, although we do not represent a Scottish constituency. People know that there are Peers who come from Scotland and have Scottish designation. It is strange that I would be able to vote on English laws and Ian Murray, or whoever is elected to the House of Commons, would not. The House of Lords has no democratic legitimacy, but we would be taking part in a greater way than elected Members of Parliament. For them to have less say is really quite wrong.
As my noble friend Lord Reid rightly said, we are playing into the hands of the SNP. I do not think it does any harm to spell out to people south of the border that we will be building up resentment in Scotland because there will be two classes of MP. It beggars belief that Members of Parliament would be elected and then put into two classes, with some having more responsibility than others. That undermines the whole principle of our elected democracy.
I could understand that this might be forced upon us or something be done to deal with the democratic deficit—although as noble Lords have said, it is not urgent and does not need to be done for next month or next year—if there was no alternative. But there are alternatives, and there is one in particular. Again and again, I have taken part in debate after debate—with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, others who have spoken today and some who are sitting quietly—where the support for a UK constitutional convention has been growing and growing. The clamour has been getting louder and louder. Things are moving. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has introduced a Bill to set up a constitutional convention. An all-party committee has been set up, and an all-party panel chaired by a Member of this House—the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, a former head of the Civil Service who is now president of the Local Government Association. That panel—the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is also a member—is going to work out what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would call a road map towards a constitutional convention, to set up a structure that will deal sensibly with the English democratic deficit.
Whether the result is an English Parliament, or regions of England, or the cities and the counties, or a combination of any two of those, is something that should be decided by the people of England. That is what a UK constitutional convention would do. Would it not be much better to put all this EVEL talk on ice and take the initiative?
To take another example, the leader of the Opposition, my right honourable friend Jeremy Corbyn, has appointed a shadow Cabinet member with specific responsibility for the constitutional convention. Would it not be better to grasp this opportunity, to take advantage of these initiatives and move in that direction, instead of down the cul-de-sac of EVEL, which will cause so many problems and threaten the United Kingdom? I fear that if we take the course of action proposed by the Government, we shall be like lemmings going unthinkingly towards the cliff. That is the last thing we should be doing.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I should like to contribute a few words in the gap. One or two others may wish to do so as well, so I shall be as brief as I can. I am sure that the Government are right to address the West Lothian question—or the English democratic deficit, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, called it—but what has puzzled me all along is why they seek to do it in this way and not by primary legislation, or at least under the cover of primary legislation. I should be grateful if the Leader of the House would explain why primary legislation is not being resorted to.
It seems to me that if the Government are to step outside the established procedures for legislation, which have the protection of the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament, they will do so at their peril. There are people outside here—we know who they are—who will seek to undermine, by means of judicial review, legislation that does not have the security of the established procedures. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, hinted at that point a moment ago.
The problem that I see goes back to a point that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, raised about taxation. I do not see how a Government can rely on legislation passed by this new procedure, which is subject to the risk of challenge in the courts, until the procedures have worked their way through the courts. I do not say that anybody who seeks to challenge the legislation is bound to succeed; that is not the point. The point is that so long as there is the risk of challenge, and the delay of waiting for the courts to resolve the issue, the legislation cannot be brought into effect, because of the risk of having to unravel everything if, by some mischance, it is declared to be invalid.
Leaving aside the problems of conventions and so forth, it has always seemed to me that if the Government wish to proceed now, and if they want to take the safest course, they should do so by means of primary legislation. I shall not elaborate on that, but it is an absolutely fundamental point. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain why that route has not been taken, in view of the risks to which the present solution seems to give rise.
Those risks were highlighted by what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said about the problems of certification. I know from sitting in such cases how difficult it sometimes is to determine whether something is a devolved issue or a reserved issue. These are tricky points of law, and to solve the problem in the way that is being proposed seems to increase the risk of challenge, which is the last thing one would want in the case of legislation that the Government wish to pass to enable them to run the country according to the established procedures.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has just made the main point that I wanted to make and did so much more authoritatively than I could have done. But I will take the opportunity to add two more: first, I would not want your Lordships to think that there is unanimity on the Cross Bench that the West Lothian question needs to be addressed. In my view, the West Lothian question should be looked at and left. I profoundly believe that it does not need an answer. In any unbalanced—in population terms, not in talent terms of course—union like ours, the 85% needs to remember the maxim that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the highest wisdom.
My only other point is that I want to spring to the defence of the Leader of the House. I know her well. It is an almost impossible task to combine these two functions. She does it extremely well. I have absolutely no doubt that she very clearly delivered the message that we sent in July by such a large majority and that she advocated at least that we get the courtesy of a reply. I would like her to know that what is being said critically of the Government and of their handling of the House of Lords is in no way personally addressed to her.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I must apologise, too, that I shall speak in the gap. This has been an excellent debate and I hope that the Leader will be able to respond to the substantive points raised.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I pay tribute to the Leader—I do not think that she has an easy job—but she needs to convince us tonight that the Government are at least paying some attention to the points raised by your Lordships, because, so far, there is scant evidence of it.
I do not want to go into the circumstances of the failure to respond to our request that a Joint Select Committee be established, but it is a very serious matter that there has been no response. The Leader has prayed in aid Mr Allen’s amendment. Although it may be considered tomorrow, there is no guarantee that the Speaker in the other place will choose it. The noble Baroness prays in aid the amendment as a reason for not responding to your Lordships, but of course her colleagues in the other place will then do everything they can to determine that, even if it is called, it will be defeated. That is not a satisfactory response.
I have noted the point that Chris Grayling made, that he wishes to see our Constitution Committee work with the Commons Procedure Committee, but what does this mean and what if the two committees disagree? If he wants the committees to work together, why on earth not establish a Joint Select Committee?
Of course, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, who made a helpful intervention informing us that his committee has agreed to accept the task that it has been asked to do.
Lord Lang of Monkton
It is not being suggested that we work together with one of the committees in the other House; we all work independently and we would be more concerned with the output that came through to this House rather than what goes on down there.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I fully understand that, but the question I am raising is: what happens if the two committees reach different conclusions? That is why I think it would have been much better if there had been a Joint Select Committee. From what the noble Lord has said—and I hope that the Leader will agree with me on this—it is clear that accepting this proposition and agreeing to do the work does not mean that the committee is saying that it endorses EVEL or the way in which the Government have chosen to do it.
So many risks are involved in the changes—so many risks to our constitution and so many risks to the union—yet the noble Baroness describes them as simply a matter of procedure and the property of the other place. It is a terrible precedent to use Standing Orders in the other place to make what is a huge constitutional change. We have heard that the contrast between the position of Scottish Members here—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was very clear on this—and in the other place is not simply a matter of procedure, and nor is the role of the Commons Speaker. The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, spoke eloquently about the problems of a Speaker being embroiled in hugely controversial political decisions. The 31 pages of memorandum from the Cabinet Office that we have seen are mostly about the Speaker’s role. There are dangers in involving the Speaker—even with the aid of two wise people, as the health docs used to say—and sharing that decision does not fill one with confidence.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, raised an important point. A Bill passed by your Lordships’ House goes to the Commons and is passed there, but is vetoed by English MPs because of the lack of a double majority. The constitutional implications of that are profound.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a pertinent point on whether Scottish MPs are to be given a veto in the circumstances he described. My noble friend Lord Reid gave us wise words about the dangers of establishing a series of grievances that put the union at risk, and they should be a warning to us all.
My time is up. I would simply ask the noble Baroness to really convince us that the Government are going to listen. The profound threat to our union and the integrity of the United Kingdom is very apparent in the debate tonight. Procedures in the Commons are not the way to do it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that this has been an interesting debate—if for nothing less than the fact that, in the two years to the week that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have not seen a government debate led by the Leader of the House which has not had a single member of her own party speak in support of the position of the Government. In fact, if it had not been for the noble efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, in the gap saying that this was not a personal reflection upon her, there would have been no support from this House in the entire debate for the position of the Government. That is worth the Government Front Bench reflecting on too.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, made a strong case of complaint, illustrated by my noble friend Lord Tyler, that this House made its view clear that very careful consideration of the implications of the Government’s proposals should be done in a Joint Committee. There are implications for the wider constitution, but there are implications for this House as well. We have heard quite a bit of bluster in the press this week about how mandates should be respected and the apocalyptic consequences if they are not. This House gave the Leader quite a considerable mandate in a majority of 181, and it is disappointing that a Joint Committee will not be considering this, which I will return to in a moment.
Equally to be reflected upon is a good article published during the summer, on 21 August, by Professor Adam Tomkins, who will be known to some noble Lords. He based the article on evidence he submitted to the Commons Procedure Committee. He said that:
“On one level the Government are right that their proposed Standing Orders are ‘a relatively modest step’ … But even relatively modest steps can have profound consequences—the ripple effect of these proposed Standing Orders may be significant, and may not yet be fully understood”.
I agree. He went on to refer to the potential consequences for the Select Committees of Parliament which cover areas of jurisdiction that apply only to England or to England and Wales, such as health, education and so on. Adam Tomkins’s views should be taken into very careful consideration because he was the Conservative nomination for the Smith commission and he is the constitutional adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is not simply our Benches saying that we need to consider it carefully. He went on to say in his article that:
“If the Government want their ‘relatively modest proposal’ to stand the test of time, they would be well advised to proceed with less haste and more care”.
I agree with him entirely. It is therefore reasonable for us to argue the case for more care and less haste.
I say with respect to the Leader of the House that these are not proposals which should be, as she put it in her opening remarks, tested in real time. This is not a software program; it is the British constitution. We should not be creating a beta form of Parliament where we only see it operate in real time. As I will comment on later, the legal consequences should also give the Government pause for thought.
I understand the politics: we saw clearly the day after the referendum that Professor Tomkins and others should be heeded. How do we monitor success in this real-time evaluation? Is it about opinion polls or the views of voters in England about English votes for English laws; or is it about the proper functioning of Parliament and its impact on legislation? The impact on Parliament is under strong consideration. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness made the point that if this House amends a measure which goes to the other place and is vetoed by only one part of that House, what status does that give to legislation that should be from all parts of Parliament? I use, as an example, our consideration of the Energy Bill today. There are parts of that Bill which, under the Government’s proposals, would be certified as English-only. If, on considering English wind farms, for example, and seeing the wider impact of the proposals on other parts of the United Kingdom, this House amended the legislation because it believed that the whole of the United Kingdom should be taken into consideration, that would change the whole aspect. That could be vetoed—using the Government’s language—by only one part of the House of Commons. If that would not create constitutional friction, I do not know what would.
This was not sufficiently addressed in the Leader’s speech, nor in the proposals for the Standing Orders. However, it draws into focus the complexities to which noble Lords have referred in this debate. The real difficulty will be when it comes to certification. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lords, Lord Reid of Cardowan and Lord Foulkes, and many others have commented on this difficulty. It is not going to be at all straightforward to easily separate out measures that the Standing Orders suggest are,
“relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales”.
The fact is that no reasoned arguments for the certification need to be forthcoming and it will not be sufficient for there to be some form of reflection for only two individual MPs. This will add even more pressure to the concern, expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that this is now opening up a new approach where the decisions of the Speaker could be challenged. They will certainly not be exempted under this area.
When the Scottish Parliament was established as a primary legislature, it was no accident that the certification process was given a statutory footing and clarity in the Standing Orders under Section 32 of the Scotland Act and in other areas. The Government should reflect very carefully on the response of the Scottish Parliament’s lawyers to the Commons Procedure Committee. Their argument was that, even under the 1999 agreement—which had a statutory footing and clarity—there remain areas where it is not easy to distinguish between the two. It is not going to be a purely benign area and if the Leader of the House thinks it is not going to be subject to challenge then, with the greatest respect, the Government are naive. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament; I have been a Borders MSP. My whole political experience has been involved in cross-border, cross-competence and cross-jurisdiction areas. My home town of Berwick has changed hands between England and Scotland 13 times. Perhaps as a Berwicker I have a genetic disposition to be warning the Government, but it will not be straightforward.
The position held by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, should be heeded very carefully because of the significant transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament that will be coming by 2018. I am strongly in favour of these unprecedented welfare and tax powers. They may not be universally supported across the House but, whether you are in favour of them or not, this is what the Government are proposing and the Leader mentioned it in her opening remarks.
If I may offer any advice from a humble, newish Member of this House, it is to take care and to pause until the implementation of these powers is in place. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated, the tax powers will be significant. It may mean that the Finance Bill in the Commons will have to be stripped out; there are specific aspects as regards the ways and means measures in the Finance Bill. The decisions on the rate of personal allowance will effectively be UK-wide decisions—one may wish to call it a federal tax—but the rates and the application will be applicable to England. I think that the splitting of the income tax between the areas that cover the Scottish rate for income tax payers and others has not been considered in any great detail and there needs to be additional clarity. If the Government think that an area of certification or simply Standing Orders that are lifetime-tested, which the Procedure Committee in the Commons considers to be an experiment, are not vulnerable to tax law and potentially to cross-border fraud and tax competition issues, with the greatest of respect, they are naive.
I do not think that the Leader of the House appreciates that we are entering a new constitutional era with welfare. The Government’s own measures being debated in the Scotland Bill in the other place—they will be coming here—propose that UK Ministers will be exercising powers concurrently with Scottish Ministers. I would be interested to know how the Leader of the House can believe that powers that will be exercised concurrently with Scottish Ministers under legislation, and will explicitly cross competence between the two, can be certified straightforwardly.
In conclusion, the time is right for this to be looked at within the wider context of the constitution through a convention. As the Commons Procedure Committee called this “an experiment”, I do not believe that it is appropriate enough to be governing primary legislation in this Parliament. Surely it is better to approach it through a constitutional convention. I would even welcome amendments proposed by the Government to make the specific remit of this issue to be part of such consideration.
I have mentioned my home town of Berwick, which was famous for giving one word to the English language from when the Scots landowners gave their fealty to John Balliol as the protector of Scotland. They had to sign the Ragman Rolls. Over the centuries, “Ragman Rolls” has become “rigmarole”. As they stand at the moment, the proposals of EVEL are a rigmarole and they should be put on a better footing through a convention where we all debate a much more coherent way forward.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, this has been a very good debate with a lot of serious contributions by serious Members of your Lordships’ House. I scheduled this debate to allow for views to be expressed before tomorrow’s debate in the other place. Normally we do not refer to individuals who are not in the Chamber and may be standing below the Bar, but the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, highlighted that Mr Bryant had been listening to the debate. I do not know whether noble Lords noticed, but the Leader of the other place was also sat on the steps of the Throne for a good part of the debate. I know that, by coming here tonight, he was keen to hear what noble Lords had to say on this very important matter.
Many sincere views are held and many serious points have been made. In responding, I will approach the debate in two parts: I will address the substance of the proposals put forward by the Government and then come to the relationship between this House and the other place. First, I just want to say that, as much as I acknowledge the serious and sincere contributions that noble Lords have made tonight, we as the Government are also very sincere about this matter and how serious this issue is. As I have already said, but it stands up to repetition, there is currently a sense of unfairness among many people in England and a desire for that unfairness to be addressed and addressed sooner rather than later.
As we have heard acknowledged several times, this matter has been around for a long time. We have tried collectively, in different ways, to come up with an answer to the West Lothian question. As I said at the start of the debate, I am not sure that there is a perfect solution and answer to that question. We feel, having been clear in our manifesto that this is something we will address and get on with addressing, that our approach in amending Standing Orders in another place and allowing for a review in a year’s time allows us to do so in a way that addresses the important substance of the matter, but also means that we can start to look at it in practice, not just in theory. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked why we are not using primary legislation, and that is one of the reasons why we are not doing so at this time. However, we think that one of the things that we should look at when this is reviewed is whether primary legislation should be used. One of the benefits of addressing this matter by amending Standing Orders rather than through legislation—this has not been raised tonight, but was in earlier debates on this, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—is that parliamentary privilege is protected.
I will move on to the substance of the proposals put forward by the Government, starting with the points raised on the role of the Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, my noble friend Lord Forsyth and others questioned whether the Speaker would be put in a very difficult position in terms of the responsibility added to his role in the other place. I argue that the Speaker is already required to take some often complex decisions and apply a judgment in a political environment and in difficult situations. Our revised proposals—we have adapted them since the summer, having listened to points made by Members of this House and the other place—give the Speaker discretion over whether to provide reasons for his certification. The judgment is his to make.
On the addition that the Speaker can consult members of the Panel of Chairs, these are not random Back-Benchers. They are Members who can already advise him on things such as money Bills. These are Members of the other place who already exist for a specific purpose. They would offer that advice and additional advice should the Speaker need it in this context.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth raised questions on spending and taxation matters, as did other noble Lords. I shall run through some of the specific issues in this regard. As I have already said, all MPs will be able to vote on all legislation, the Budget and supply estimates. MPs from across the House will continue to make all legislation together. The process for deciding the level of the block grants awarded to the devolved Assemblies will remain unchanged. All UK MPs will continue to vote on the Budget and all aspects of income tax but, additionally, English MPs will be able to approve changes to some taxes in the future. That is the same as for MSPs, who will have the final say on the relevant income tax after the Smith agreement has been implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but will she deal with the following point? If English MPs are going to vote on English tax, and if they decide to reduce income tax, that will have implications for the block grant because, if they reduce income tax, less money will be available for the programmes; and the Barnett formula, which the Government wish to retain, would mean that they would get a proportion of that. So it is not true to say that decisions taken by English MPs on English tax have no effect on Scottish MPs’ constituents, or, indeed, on the decisions which the Scottish Parliament would then have to take. So how will that be resolved?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The process for deciding the block grant remains unchanged. All Members of the other House will continue to have the same powers as they have now in deciding that matter.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Following on from that, and with great respect, I do not think that she understands the question or the formula. The Barnett formula will allocate a proportion of government moneys to the Scottish Parliament. If, as a result of a decision of English MPs on English taxation, that reservoir is reduced, then the block grant by the formula under Barnett will be reduced. Therefore, the money going to the Scottish Parliament, and through it to the various constituencies, will be reduced. So here is an example of what appears to be an English decision that has direct financial implications for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish constituencies. How is that to be resolved?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is not being unfair when he says that we are now going beyond my level of knowledge of the way in which the Barnett formula works. While I am on my feet, I will see whether I get any additional information to assist me in responding to the noble Lord on this matter. For the moment, it is probably best for me to move on from that rather than try to guess at an answer to the specific point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am conscious of the time, but before the Leader moves on from tax, perhaps I may ask whether the consequence of what she has just said is that, going forward, all taxes will have to be certified. If there are to be separate votes for English MPs on taxes—which are equivalent to those to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, on the rates of income tax and all the other taxes within the Smith agreement that the Scotland Act is delivering—the consequence is that every single tax will have to be certified by the Speaker as to its competence; otherwise the system cannot work. Will that be the position?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The process that the Speaker has to follow in order to certify Bills will apply. As regards Bills being subject to the certification process, there is no separate arrangement for a separate kind of Bill. Each Bill that is introduced into the House of Commons will be subject to that certification process. If there are aspects of a Bill which concern only England or England and Wales, they will follow the respective process which will allow for the English, or English and Welsh, MPs to have a greater voice and say on the decisions that affect only their constituents. That is what the English votes for English laws arrangements mean.
This is probably a good time for me to move on to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others about the veto of English MPs and other matters of that kind. The important thing to stress is that what these provisions do is give a stronger voice to English MPs. We are not removing power from any Members of the other place. It is about giving a greater voice to English MPs. As far as a veto is concerned, the point that I have made in previous debates, and I stress again, is that what English MPs will not be able to do is initiate something without the approval of the whole House. They cannot overrule the whole House but neither can the rest of the House overrule them. It is about a power to stop something which directly affects their constituents and nobody else’s. It is not about them having a power to introduce something which would be for the benefit of their constituents only, without the support of the rest of the House.
Lord Tyler
Dancing on the top of pins at this time of night is not a happy experience. What is the basic difference in principle between a veto that stops something happening and, in the terms that the Leader has been explaining, one that prevents something from being initiated by a group? It is playing with words. It is semantics. If there is a veto, there is a veto, and that veto is going to be exercised—for the first time ever in the Westminster Parliament—by a smaller group than the whole Westminster Parliament, including, as we discovered earlier today, matters that come from this House to the other place.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will come in a moment to ping-pong and how amendments made by this House are considered by the other place, but I disagree with the noble Lord about his interpretation of what I am saying. I am very clear that there is a difference between somebody having the power to stop something and somebody having the power to force something through that others are not in agreement with.
Moving on to this House, and to pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, as I have already said, our powers remain exactly the same and our procedures are not affected. We will be able to consider legislation in the future in exactly the same way as we do now. When we amend legislation and we send a Bill back to the other place, the Speaker will have to certify our amendments again. He will certify whether the amendments that have been made—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The Leader says that what has been proposed does not change anything in this House. My question is: why not? I go back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. This is a most extraordinary situation, where his MP will not be allowed to take part in key decisions, whereas he, as a Member residing in Scotland, is. We have yet to hear any convincing argument about why the two Houses are being treated differently.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Although my noble friend does not agree with the reason why the two Houses are being treated differently, he answered his own question, which is that we are all Peers of the United Kingdom. We do not represent any particular part of the United Kingdom. As I said when I first repeated the Statement that introduced these proposals a few months ago, as much as I am proud to come from Beeston and wanted to take Beeston in my title, I do not represent Beeston. None of us represents any particular part of the country, so that is why we are treated differently.
When our amendments go to the other place, the Speaker will be asked to certify whether they apply only to England or England and Wales. The other place will consider our amendments in the Chamber in exactly the same way as they do now: the whole House of Commons will consider the amendments made by your Lordships’ House. When MPs come to vote on any such amendments, the votes will be counted for a double-majority. If the amendments that we have made to legislation affect only England or England and Wales, it will be necessary for those MPs to approve our amendments as well as the whole House of Commons.
The noble Lord says, from a sedentary position, that that is a veto. But we have to take a step back for a moment and remember that what we are introducing here is English votes for English laws. We are saying that we want Members of Parliament who represent English constituencies to have a stronger voice. It would make a mockery of that if MPs from those constituencies were not able to have a stronger voice when asked to consider amendments that affect only their constituencies.
This is not the process for amendments that apply to the UK as a whole, but for those that apply to England or England and Wales only. If the House of Commons as a whole votes in favour, but the English or English and Welsh MPs do not support measures that apply only to their constituencies, we will receive back a message that says the House of Commons does not agree with the amendments that we have made. The key point is that we will receive a message in exactly the same way as we do now, with a reason why the House of Commons has decided not to accept the amendments. It will be up to the Government, as they are now, to consider very carefully what has been said by the House of Commons and to consider what we might want to put forward to this House. This House will then decide what it wants to do. If this House still does not agree, it will send the message back again—so our amendments will be considered in exactly the same way. But we cannot introduce English votes for English laws without the MPs who represent English or English and Welsh constituencies having the stronger voice that they deserve when this House wants to introduce something that will affect only those places.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I apologise for detaining the House and to the noble Baroness for intervening—which I rarely do—but I want to make sure that I understand this for the sake of clarity. She talks about the voice of English MPs being heard, but it seems to me that this is about significantly more than that. An amendment passed by your Lordships’ House, whatever the size of the majority—such as the one on a Joint Committee which passed by 101 votes—would go to the House of Commons. It could be passed by the House of Commons, but a subset of MPs—the English MPs—would then have a veto. It is not just a voice—that would be an extra Committee stage, a discussion or a debate. This is a veto, and they would be able to say, “No we do not accept that”, even though it would have gone through the House of Lords and the entire House of Commons, and send it back to the House of Lords. So it does impact on your Lordships’ House. It is not just a case of being sent back by the whole House of Commons to be reconsidered; it is a subset of MPs who have a veto—not a voice—who send it back. It does impact on how we work, as we would be asked to reconsider something that we would not otherwise have been asked to reconsider.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The House of Commons as a whole clearly needs to consider what this House has put forward, and I am sure that we will want to know, when we are considering what comes back to us, not just what the English are saying. We will want to hear.
I come back to what I said earlier. We have come forward with a set of proposals which build on the many different forums that have considered how to implement English votes for English laws. We believe that it is a pragmatic proposal that will allow that to happen. We will review it once it has been operating; we cannot wait for ever to find a perfect solution—I am not sure that one exists—but I believe that we have come up with a clear way forward.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I promise my noble friend that this is my last intervention. It is on this point and the point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me a serious point that if a matter has been passed without the support of both Houses of Parliament, where one part of Parliament has created whatever outcome it is, it loses the protection of sovereignty and is open to legal challenge. Can my noble friend deal with that point?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I just do not accept that argument. The House of Commons will consider our amendments. If we have decided to make amendments that affect only a certain group of constituencies, the English MPs, it will be for them to be able to send them back to us. The key thing which addresses the sovereignty point is that, in the end, both Houses have to agree. We will keep ping-ponging until we reach agreement.
Please let me make some progress, because I think that noble Lords want me to move on. On the issue of a Joint Committee, I fully accept and understand that when this matter was debated earlier, in the summer, this House was absolutely clear in its view that it wanted a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the constitutional implications of English votes for English laws. As has been highlighted, I am the Leader of the House as a whole as well as the leader of the party in government and a member of the Government. I assure noble Lords that of course I made it clear that that was a firm view, resoundingly expressed by your Lordships’ House but, as I said earlier, and as I said when we debated this matter a couple of months ago, the Government are clear in their view about not wanting to delay the implementation of English votes for English laws.
My right honourable friend Chris Grayling has replied by approaching the Constitution Committee, as was outlined. Several committees in another place have been looking at the Government’s proposals: the Procedure Committee, the Public Affairs and Constitution Committee, and the Scottish Affairs Committee. The Government do not feel it necessary to create yet another committee to examine the matter, but I am grateful that the chairman of the Constitution Committee in your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lord Lang, and his colleagues, have agreed to consider what the constitutional implications of the proposals may be and to feed in to the review to which I referred. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said this evening about that work.
Lord Tyler
I think that all Members of your Lordships’ House appreciate the difficulties with which the Leader of the House is faced on this issue. I have one very small suggestion. In my experience, if the Government were to say that they wish the particular amendment which responds to the Motion from your Lordships’ House, the Speaker would be bound to ensure that there was an opportunity to vote on it. That is surely the very minimum that we should be asking the Leader of the House in the other place to do: simply to make sure that there is a proper response by the whole House of Commons to the whole House of Lords.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That matter now sits in the House of Commons. I am the Leader of the House of Lords. I am not the Leader of the House of Commons, as is very clear. That is something that we will now have to leave with the House of Commons and see how it wishes to consider it.
I shall draw to a conclusion and make a couple of brief points. Several points were made this evening about noble Lords feeling that this House is being ignored by this Government and that we are not taking seriously the need for our legislation to be properly scrutinised and debated in your Lordships’ House. I absolutely reject that opinion. Although we are no longer in coalition and this is a new Government, it is worth remembering that in the previous Parliament 21,000 amendments to government legislation were tabled in this House and 6,000 of them were passed or accepted. That is a measure of how seriously this House is taken and of the importance of its work. In the past few weeks, acknowledging the need for greater time to be applied for debating government legislation, we recommitted parts of the Energy Bill when we wanted to bring forward government amendments to it. The Government responded to the Secondary Legislation Select Committee when it asked for more information on a piece of secondary legislation. So I can assure noble Lords that I take very seriously indeed the role of this House and the need for it properly to scrutinise government legislation, and I will continue to do that—and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his remarks.
Points were made about the need for a constitutional convention for this and other matters to be considered. Noble Lords will have heard other members of the Government say from this Dispatch Box that we do not believe that a constitutional convention is the right way forward. We were very clear in our manifesto about the changes we want to make to provide greater devolution to all parts of the United Kingdom, and we made much of that during the general election campaign. Having been elected, we are seeking to deliver those commitments in our manifesto—and they include English votes for English laws.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am very grateful to the Leader of the House, and I do not want to prolong this. She said that she would come back on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and me. I do not know whether the cavalry has arrived with the answer to that question or whether the answer arrived but was unintelligible. I say that with great sympathy. It has not been a habit in my life to feel sorry for Conservative Ministers, but I do. I think that she has been given what in sport is called a hospital pass on this one. So I quite understand if she, or indeed the Government and the Civil Service, cannot answer tonight. However, will she write to all those who have spoken today, not just the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with the definitive answer to that specific question? Although it is specific, it has huge implications for the politics of the relationship between the two major countries, in terms of population, of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is always very timely in providing opportunities for me to respond, and by intervening when he did he gave me the opportunity to quickly read the note that had come to me from the Box. I shall share with him what I have learned this evening. English MPs will not be able to reduce the income tax rate in England without the approval of the whole House. English MPs can only prevent the whole House imposing an English rate without their consent, not the other way around. All MPs are involved in all legislation, including on tax. I hope that that has clarified the matter, but it looks as if it has not.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I am very grateful, although this may extend the discussion. I did not quite understand the noble Baroness’s reply. It may be a lack of mental capacity on my part, but I think that the second thing the noble Baroness said was that English MPs would be able to stop an increase in English income tax. Did I understand that correctly? I was not aware that there was such a thing as English income tax; I thought that there was just income tax. Perhaps she could explain that to me or have a quick word with her officials later.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
What I shall do is read out the note a little more slowly, and then I will happily commit to sending the noble Lord and others a letter. The noble Lord actually has huge mental capacity; I have read this note and I understand it, so if I understand it then I know for a fact he will.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
He has no idea how much of an idol he is to me in terms of his mental capacity, so I do feel that this is not a concept that he cannot cope with. Let me try again. English MPs will not be able to reduce the income tax rate in England without the approval of the whole House. This is about all MPs being involved in legislation, including on tax. English MPs can only prevent the whole House imposing an English rate without their consent.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord, from a sedentary position, shouted the word “veto”. I am afraid that that brings me back to the beginning.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
The second sentence is exactly what I am questioning—that they can prevent an increase in the English rate of income tax. That slightly confuses me since I assumed that the rate of income tax was a UK rate, and I do not quite see how we are now envisaging a potential increase in the English rate of income tax.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Because once we have implemented the full Smith proposals, some tax powers will be devolved to Scotland in future. So as far as income tax is concerned, in Scotland they will have devolved power in future, so what English MPs will have will be the power to change rates of income tax that affect only England. This will be a result of the greater devolution. I will give way one last time and then I think the House’s patience will probably have been exhausted.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I think that the noble Baroness had better write to me, because I disagree with her on the second part of what she said. A power will be extended to Scotland to increase or decrease its rate of tax, but that will not in any way relate to the power of England to set the basic rate of tax on which the Scottish adjustments will be empowered. However, I will be happy for the noble Baroness to write to me.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I will write to the noble Lord but will say one last thing. Income tax and budget provisions will be considered by all MPs in the House of Commons in the future, as they are now. This is about changes to specific income tax rates as a result of greater devolution. We will have a situation in the future in which, because of greater powers being devolved to other nations, when there are changes to rates of income tax that apply only in England, English MPs should be able to prevent changes being made that they do not agree to. But I will stop now. I have enjoyed this evening, even if no one else has. I thank all noble Lords once again for their contributions on what is a very serious matter, and I am grateful to them for their contributions this evening.