House of Commons
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 11 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, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of recent trends in apprenticeship starts.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
4. What assessment he has made of recent trends in apprenticeship starts.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
14. What assessment he has made of recent trends in apprenticeship starts.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
More than 2.4 million apprenticeship starts have been delivered in England since May 2010, but we are now going even further. We are committed to 3 million more over the course of this Parliament and we will ensure that they deliver the skills that employers and the economy need for continued growth.
Nicola Blackwood
We need to fill 1 million more digital jobs by 2020, not to mention finding 1 million more technicians and engineers. In that context, I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree wholeheartedly with the Science and Technology Committee’s first report, published yesterday, which states that cuts to science and innovation spending are a false economy. That spending is an investment, not a state subsidy, and it creates jobs, increases productivity and attracts inward investment. It is essential for science, technology, maths and engineering—STEM—apprentices seeking innovative British employers.
Sajid Javid
I commend my hon. Friend for her leadership of the Science and Technology Committee. She is absolutely right to talk about the importance of science, innovation and digital skills. She will know that I made a speech yesterday to Innovate UK’s annual conference, in which I set out new plans to boost science and innovation capabilities.
Sajid Javid
I am delighted to congratulate those who have started their apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There has been a 45% increase in apprenticeships since 2010, and we have ensured that they are high-quality paid jobs that last at least 12 months. The whole House should acknowledge the incredible work that has been done by the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) on apprenticeships. He has focused not only on quality but on quantity.
Michael Tomlinson
Cobham, a company in Wimborne in my constituency, takes on between 12 and 18 new apprentices each year, and there have been just under 700 new apprenticeship starts in my constituency in the past 12 months. Businesses are responding to the call for new apprenticeships, but may I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that these apprenticeships really are worth while and high-skilled, so that those who undertake them will really benefit from them?
Sajid Javid
I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend’s constituency has had a 37% increase in apprenticeship starts since 2010. I know that he is very passionate about this, and that he has done much to promote apprenticeships. He is absolutely right to talk about the quality. Higher and degree apprenticeships are widening access to professions, giving young people new, well-respected routes to professional education at some of our best universities.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Secretary of State talks a good game, but the fact is that apprenticeship starts have dropped in every single year since 2011-12. The ambition for 3 million new apprenticeship starts is commendable, but would he concede that, in the light of the uncertainty surrounding key policy aspects such as the apprenticeship levy, he is going to struggle to hit that target?
Sajid Javid
First, I must point out that there were more than 492,000 apprenticeship starts in 2014-15, which was up 50,000 on the previous year. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the apprenticeship levy, and I know that he and his Select Committee have done some work on this. I hope that he will acknowledge that that will be a way of ensuring proper funding for apprenticeships, not just for the quality but for the quantity too.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
In Doncaster, we were absolutely delighted to secure one of the two sites for the national college for high speed rail, but the Government seem to be a bit lukewarm about that now. We want to get on with developing and expanding apprenticeship opportunities in the rail industry, so will the Secretary of State confirm that he still fully backs the site in Doncaster for the college?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to reassure the right hon. Lady that we are committed to the college. It is right that it should be in Doncaster, and it will make a big difference to skills in an important area for our future infrastructure.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
What impact does the Secretary of State think cutting the funding for further education colleges by 40% might have on the availability and quality of apprenticeships?
Sajid Javid
I speak as someone who went to an FE college, and no one needs to tell me about their huge importance up and down the country. My priority is to make them stronger, and one way we are going to do that is through local area reviews, which will look at local need.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The video gaming industry contributes more than £3 billion to our economy and supports skilled jobs across the country, including in my constituency. Representatives of the industry tell me that the biggest barrier to growth is a lack of skills, yet there are no employee-led level 4 higher apprenticeships in video gaming, and the NextGen Skills Academy, which was working with employers to develop such an apprenticeship, is said to have lost its funding. We cannot allow the Government’s lack of a digital skills strategy to make it “game over” for Britain, so will the Secretary of State give me a guarantee now that the video gaming industry will get the apprenticeship standard that it needs? Yes or no?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady should be reassured, first, by the fact that I have met representatives of the video gaming industry on a number of occasions to discuss several issues, including skills. She will know that it is important that apprenticeships are employer-led, and it is up to any industry to come forward with proposals. We are already working with more than 1,000 employers on more than 140 apprenticeship programmes that they are helping to set up, and we will work with the video gaming industry, too.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to support the aerospace industry.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
The Government are working with industry, through the Aerospace Growth Partnership, to remove the barriers to growth, to boost exports and to grow high-value jobs. As part of that work, we are supporting the industry’s investment in technology, competitiveness, productivity, and skills.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating Boeing, which has a significant base in my constituency, on more than doubling its workforce since 2010 and on increasing investment in UK suppliers from £1 billion to £1.4 billion over that period?
Sajid Javid
I certainly will. Crawley is an important area for aerospace: Jeppesen-Boeing has a fantastic flight training and service facility, which includes the largest number of Boeing Dreamliner simulators in the world; and of course the area is also home to Thales and London Gatwick airport. I commend my hon. Friend on the work he has done to promote this industry.
Andrew Stephenson
The last financial quarter saw the highest ever number of aircraft deliveries—it was up 5% on last year’s figure and up 34% on 2010’s. Many aerospace companies across Pendle credit the Government’s Aerospace Growth Partnership as having played a key role in that success, so will the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to support that valuable partnership?
Sajid Javid
Yes. I see regular dialogue with the sector councils, such as the Aerospace Growth Partnership, as a vital part of our industrial approach. It is important that the UK continues to become more productive and more competitive, and that has been central to the work of the Aerospace Growth Partnership. I will be meeting many of that industry’s representatives on 3 December in Filton.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Further to that question, will the Secretary of State confirm today that the UK Government will continue to fund the Aerospace Growth Partnership through their £1 billion contribution over seven years from 2013 and that he is not considering in any way diluting the funding available for the Aerospace Growth Partnership, particularly by converting it into loans?
Sajid Javid
The Government are absolutely committed to having a strong aerospace sector, and that strength is represented in our commitment to the Aerospace Technology Institute, which is what I believe the hon. Gentleman was referring to.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Discussions move ahead on the UK’s first space port. Does the Minister agree that safety, especially that of the general public, is of primary importance in considering the location of such a space port? Do not a coastal location and extensive airspace unhampered by commercial flying, such as are available at Llanbedr in my constituency, make a crucial contribution to any safety assessment?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that safety is paramount in that sector. We have consulted on a location and we will be talking to our colleagues in the Department for Transport on the outcome.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
As the Secretary of State is aware, I have world-leading aerospace companies in my constituency, and they are appreciative of the help the Government are giving to the sector. The biggest problem they still face is the inability to recruit a sufficient number of young people who are considering engineering as a career. What discussions is he having with the Education Secretary about persuading teachers to enlighten pupils as to the opportunities that exist in the sector?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Skills in engineering, not just for this sector, but for many others, are hugely important. With my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, we are working closely to get more employers into schools to talk to schoolchildren about their prospects and the huge opportunities that exist in that industry. There is always more that we can do, and he is absolutely right to raise this issue.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Last week, Paul Everitt, the head of the aerospace trade body, ADS, said:
“Loans for research and development are not appropriate and that kind of approach would put the UK at a disadvantage.”
May I press the Secretary of State to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) and rule out replacing research grants with loans that will damage Britain’s ability to innovate and compete?
Sajid Javid
I made a speech yesterday at the annual conference of Innovate UK in which I talked about the many ways to help the sectors. Grants, exports and skills are just some of them. One thing this Government will not shy away from is supporting that sector, and supporting innovation.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
3. What steps he is taking to support the manufacturing sector.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
The best way the Government can support manufacturers is by sticking to their long-term economic plan. That includes cutting red tape by a further £10 billion, creating 3 million apprenticeships, lowering corporation tax and devolving budgets and powers to local leaders.
John Stevenson
My constituency of Carlisle in north Cumbria has a strong and healthy manufacturing sector. I helped to promote the industry locally by organising a skills fair, which the Minister for Skills will hopefully attend next year. However, what assistance can the Government give to Cumbria to attract skilled workers not just from Cumbria, but from other areas to help complete large infrastructure projects such as the nuclear new build at Moorside?
Sajid Javid
I commend my hon. Friend on his annual skills fair, which I know is already making a big difference to his constituents. He will be pleased to learn that the advanced manufacturing centre at Carlisle college will begin construction in 2016-17 with growth deal funding. There is no doubt that that will help to boost local skills.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that although it is important that employers have a leading role in the development of skills, it is also necessary that skills are transferable? Unless the FE sector is involved in the process of training people and giving them those skills, those skills will not necessarily be transferable.
Sajid Javid
I agree about the importance of transferable skills. Our local area review of the FE sector up and down the country will look very closely at local needs, and at ensuring that skills are transferable.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to protect British manufacturing from dumping on our market and maximising the effect of existing international rules?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend knows that, when it comes to trade measures, action has to be taken by the European Union. I know that he has a particular interest in steel, and this is a hugely important issue about dealing with unfair trade. We discussed that at the emergency Council that I attended yesterday in Brussels. One thing that was agreed in the presidency conclusions was that the Commission should prioritise certain cases, and that certainly includes the steel industry.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Last week in my constituency, the Mahle Group announced the loss of up to 200 highly skilled jobs in the manufacturing sector. The Scottish Government, devolved agencies and local authorities are already involved, but this is a classic example of a European-wide company shipping the process and jobs to another plant in the EU. What support can the UK Government provide, and what can they do both to stop such moves in the future and to encourage long-term investment in technology here?
Sajid Javid
We can continue to make the UK as attractive as possible for manufacturers. What we have seen in the past five years is that output is up for the manufacturing sector, exports are up and jobs are up, and that is because of our long-term economic plan, which is bringing in tax cuts, investing in skills, cutting red tape and boosting exports.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State bring forward details of the package of support that will be put in place to help those workers in the black country affected by the collapse of Caparo, including 54 in my constituency, so that the skills can be retained within the black country engineering sector?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. It is hugely important that workers who are affected by the crisis in the steel industry get whatever help can be provided. We have rolled out plans for support across the country, and we are talking to local leaders to see what more we can do.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The official Opposition have had to drag the Government, kicking and screaming, to the House time after time to get them to stand up for British steelmaking. It is now almost two weeks since the Business Secretary finally went to Brussels to hurry along the European Commission on state aid approval, and yesterday he attended the EU Competitive Council. Although there were welcome pledges for the future, no action was agreed that will make a material difference to our steel industry now. How long must the industry continue to wait for the compensation package promised by the Prime Minister in 2011 to be paid in full? When will the Business Secretary get a grip, stop hiding behind the EU and do more to tackle the root causes of this crisis?
Sajid Javid
It is a shame that the hon. Lady has to take that attitude. It would be better if she were a lot more constructive on this issue. I could point out that under 13 years of Labour we saw a 45% collapse in steel production and jobs halved—cut by more than 10,000—because of her Government’s policies. This Government are taking the issue seriously. This Government called for, and were granted, an emergency Council meeting at which we agreed on a number of actions. They will be published today and there will be further information in my written statement, which the hon. Lady can read.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
5. What progress he has made on introducing a market rent only option for pub tenants.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
The Government published a consultation on the introduction of the market rent only option on 29 October. Our proposals have been drafted to strike a fair balance between pub companies and tenants, and we look forward to hearing views from across the industry during the consultation period.
Louise Haigh
The draft pubs code released by the Minister in late October was supposed to signal the end of the unfair practice of forcing tied tenants to buy their beer only from pubcos. In fact, the code seems to give tenants the freedom to buy on the open market only in exceptional circumstances. Does the Minister agree that the code will mean in practice that very few tenants will be free from the pubco profiteers?
Anna Soubry
No, I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s assessment of the consultation at all. The clue is in the name: this is a consultation. We are therefore, quite rightly, publishing our proposals, and I look forward to representations from everybody, including the hon. Lady.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I join the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and say that a number of pubs have closed in my constituency and those of my colleagues simply because property prices and rents are too high? I recognise that we need to keep the pubcos in business too, or we will not help anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that exceptional circumstances would include any situation in which a pub would have to close because the rent was too high?
Anna Soubry
This is all very useful and helpful, and I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I look forward to him putting his views into the consultation; a mix of views is critical to what I emphasise again is a consultation.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Tenants’ groups and the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign have contacted me to say that they believe that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has acted in bad faith, and that the draft code of practice for pubs does not even abide by the legislation and entirely negates the market rent only option. They will be asking the Minister tomorrow to withdraw the code, which is entirely unacceptable, and engage with them to come up with something that accords with the will of the House as it was expressed last November.
Anna Soubry
I am very disappointed to hear all that. Let me make it clear that I have stood up against planned closures of public houses in my constituency and railed against companies such as Greene King. [Interruption.] Yes, I have, and I have fought for other pubs. Hon. Members can look on my website for details. That is not the point. It is really important that we strike the right balance on this issue. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the parallel rent assessment provision, which I know he has not always been in favour of—I think he changed his mind at the last moment—is not in the code.
Anna Soubry
Shouting from a sedentary position does not help at all. The new style of politics has not quite reached the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lords have made their concerns very clear to Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and as a result of my conversations with her, that particular proposal will go into the second part of the consultation.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister’s so-called consultation scrapped the promised parallel rent assessment, so I am pleased to hear that she has put that back in. Will she do the same with all the provisions that were offered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe in the other House on 28 January and make sure that the vast majority of pub tenants are offered a fair deal when it comes to the market rent-only option? If she does not, she will be acting in bad faith and she will have betrayed the trust of thousands of pub tenants up and down the country.
Anna Soubry
As I keep saying, it is a consultation so we will listen to everybody. It is important that we strike the balance fairly between both sides of the argument, and that we understand and accept that there has been a great deal of movement to the betterment of tenants over the past few years. We must recognise that. I know from my own constituency work that pub companies such as Punch and Greene King have hugely changed their views to the benefit of tenants, and that must be welcomed.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
6. What his priorities are for business in the Government’s negotiations for reform of the EU.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
We must empower businesses to compete more effectively by accelerating the integration of the single market, especially in the services, digital and energy sectors. We will do this by cutting red tape for business and pushing for more ambitious free trade agreements between the EU and the rest of the world.
Neil Carmichael
Does the Secretary of State agree that the best interests of business will be served by our being a member of a reformed and reforming European Union? That extends to our remaining in the single market. From my right hon. Friend’s vantage point as President of the Board of Trade, it is extraordinarily useful that the European Union can negotiate such good strong deals for us globally.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of the need for EU reform, but many businesses believe that the costs of membership currently outweigh the benefits. As the Prime Minister said, in order for us to get the best deal, we must have the referendum and let the British people decide.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Last week a group of senior business figures in the north-west said it was vital for jobs in our region that Britain stays in the European Union. Will the Government heed what they say and perhaps make it a priority in the negotiations that the £800 million of EU structural funds given to the north-West will continue?
Sajid Javid
The one thing that businesses agree on is the need for reform. They are united in that, whichever business group one speaks to. If we can get those reforms, which I am confident about—and the Prime Minister has talked more about them this morning—we will see an even bigger boost to jobs and opportunities in Britain.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State remind the House of the trade deficit that we have with the EU, and of the fact that the unreformed EU is clearly not working for British business?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to remind us of the current deficit. That is why one of the reforms that we want is a deeper and broader single market which includes digital and professional services, which Britain is very good at, alongside manufacturing, so that we can do more trade.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Writing in The Telegraph, the Prime Minister’s potential successor as leader of the Tory party, the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), said that the Prime Minister was right
“to unsheathe a section of the blade that might soon be used to cut the rope and set Britain free”
from the EU. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of the likely impact on Scottish business of Britain turning its back on its European trading partners, and does he think that is appropriate language from a man of such standing?
Sajid Javid
I agree that we need reform. All Members on the Government Benches agree on the need to fight for that reform, which means cutting red tape and creating a deeper single market, more ambitious free trade agreements and fairness between the euro-ins and outs. I hope the hon. Lady will join us in fighting for that reform.
Hannah Bardell
A poll of Scottish business last month found that 82% of small and medium-sized businesses support the UK remaining in the EU. I dare say that those businesses value their ability to export more than £12.9 billion-worth of goods and services throughout the EU, creating wealth and jobs at home. Have this Government not lost all control of an exit agenda that was started only to appease right-wing Eurosceptic Back Benchers and may very well result in Scotland being dragged into delusional imperial isolation against its will?
Sajid Javid
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role, which I omitted to do earlier. She will know that one of the most important sectors in Scotland is the financial services industry, whether asset management or banking. That is one area where we could have deeper single market and do more trade with the rest of the European Union. If she supports that cause, then she will support our efforts to reform the EU.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
7. What estimate he has made of the number of students from India applying to study in the UK in each of the past three years.
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
While overall international student numbers are up year on year, there were 16,000 Indian students in 2015—a decline of 13% over the past three years. However, it is worth stressing that India remains our second largest such market.
Bob Blackman
The fact is that the numbers of students choosing to come here has declined by 53% in the past four years. There is clear concern that we need to do something about this so that Britain, rather than the United States or elsewhere, becomes the choice for Indians to study. What measures can my hon. Friend take on visas, changing times for study and the ability of students to work here?
Joseph Johnson
It is important that we clear up misperceptions in the Indian market about the openness of our offer. We are open to international students. There is no cap on the number of international students who can come and study here, or on the number who can come and stay here after they finish studying, provided that they get a graduate job. We want to make more Indian students feel welcome here, and that is what we will be doing during the visit of Prime Minister Modi later this week.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister says that we want to make more Indian students feel welcome here, but it is clear from the figures that they feel much more welcome in America, Canada and Australia—our competitor countries. Will this not have a substantial impact on Britain’s trade relations with India and other countries such as Pakistan where the figures have fallen, and what is he going to do about it?
Joseph Johnson
Overall international student numbers are up year on year. We have a competitive offer for international students. We have a world-class higher education sector, with 38 out of the world’s top 100 universities. It is not surprising that international students from all over the world want to come and study at our great universities.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I alert the House to my interest in the register. When is the Minister’s Department going to show some leadership and get the Home Office to take students out of the migration figures? This Government are undermining the global reach of our universities, and America, Canada and Australia are benefiting.
Joseph Johnson
We have a competitive offer, as underlined by the fact that international student numbers are up by 3% to 4% year on year. We work closely together to ensure that our international offer is competitive. It remains competitive and will continue to be so. There is no cap on the number of international students coming to this country and no limit to the number who can go on to work in graduate jobs with a sponsored employer.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
8. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken by UK Trade & Investment to encourage British exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (George Freeman)
I am delighted to be able to report that UKTI has increased its effectiveness year on year since 2010. We have doubled the number of UK companies assisted on exports from 27,000 in 2010 to 55,000. This is working. We have secured an extra £60 billion in additional sales and a rise in exports of 9% for existing exporters and 46% for new exporters. I am also delighted that the life sciences are doing their bit. I recently signed a £2 billion trade deal with China, and there will be more announcements on Thursday with the Indian state visit.
Andrew Griffiths
Britain brews the best beer in the world, and I know that the Minister wants to get our brewers exporting, but sadly they tell me that the performance of UKTI to date shows that it could not organise a party in a brewery. Will he sit down with UKTI and do all he can to help medium and family-sized brewers export across the world?
George Freeman
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion for British beer and Burton brewers? He makes a very important point and I would be delighted to convene that meeting with UKTI. We need to roll out the barrel for British beer and I am delighted to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I have set out an ambitious food and agri-tech export plan, to ensure that the whole world experiences the benefits of British beer and food.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
The Northern Ireland agri-food industry depends on exports. With the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in China this week, what further steps will the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills take in accessing new market opportunities for British and Northern Ireland exports?
George Freeman
The hon. Lady makes an important point. The Northern Ireland sector is a crucial part of the UK sector, and that is why we have set up the exports implementation taskforce. We are absolutely dealing with the points she has raised about Northern Ireland.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
22. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) is absolutely right: small and medium-sized businesses are still not getting the traction they need from UKTI. Will the Minister do everything possible to help chambers of commerce to engage with one another so that we can hit our £1 trillion of exports?
George Freeman
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Lord Maude is overseeing an important review of the way in which UKTI works, to make sure that we are developing a sector focus and a strategic market focus around the world. We are maintaining momentum—and we will improve on it in the years ahead—in order to hit that ambitious target.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The deficit for which this Department is responsible is the trade deficit. The current account measures our ability to pay our way in the world and its deficit recently reached its highest point since the second world war. It is still at 3.6% of GDP. How on earth will refusing to have an industrial strategy help British exporters overcome the failure of this Government’s trade policy?
George Freeman
The hon. Gentleman has picked the wrong Minister to talk about industrial strategy, seeing as I lead one of our most successful ones on life sciences. The Secretary of State’s speech yesterday made very clear our commitment to innovation, and this Department, though our investment in science and innovation, is leading in building a long-term economic plan for the science, industries and innovation of tomorrow. The hon. Gentleman can cite trade balance figures all he likes, but the truth is that we are in a global economy and we cannot control the rate at which other economies grow around the world.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to prevent businesses exploiting migrant workers.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
We are creating a director of labour market enforcement. This will strengthen our ability to find and stop exploitative employers, such as the 41 businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency who have had their gangmasters’ licences refused or revoked.
Matt Warman
As my hon. Friend knows, Lincolnshire produces some of the finest food in the country, but some of its workers are affected by the issues under discussion. Does he agree that it should be as much down to supermarkets and consumers to make sure that everyone knows that the food we eat is produced in humane conditions?
Nick Boles
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that supermarkets and other traders are as transparent as possible about the work they have done to ensure that nowhere in their supply chain is there any kind of slavery or other kind of labour exploitation. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 specifically requires them to make a statement of that kind.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of further education provision and funding in Sussex.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
An area review—the Sussex coast review of post-16 education and training—is taking place and it will recommend high-quality, sustainable and financially viable further education and sixth-form colleges through a reformed structure.
Tim Loughton
Two FE colleges in my constituency—Worthing college and Northbrook college—are part of that review. They are good and improving colleges, providing valuable apprenticeships, training and education. They have already taken large cuts—there is much uneconomic provision—so can the Minister assure me that the area reviews are not just a cover for further, unrealistic cuts that will threaten their viability altogether? Why are sixth forms in schools not included in those reviews?
Nick Boles
I am glad to have an opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend. Regional school commissioners are absolutely required to be part of the area reviews. Those in some parts of the country have perhaps been surprised by that requirement, so I am happy to reassert it: they are employed by the Department for Education and are required to be part of those area reviews. The point of area reviews is to have strong, sustainable FE and sixth-form colleges that can take advantage of growing revenue streams such as the funding for apprenticeships.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
11. What proportion of businesses in England employ an apprentice.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
I am sorry to detain you yet further, Mr Speaker.
Data from the 2014 UK Commission for Employment and Skills employer perspectives survey showed that, in England, about 15% of establishments have offered formal apprenticeships. When we introduce the apprenticeship levy in 2017, we expect that percentage to increase significantly.
Mr Speaker
Quite why the Minister supposes that I find it anything other than joyous to sample his mellifluous tones I frankly cannot fathom. I am not being detained by anybody; my duty is to be in the Chamber, and I shall always be here.
Peter Aldous
The Apprenticeships Suffolk Business Service has been formed by the chamber of commerce and the county council, and it is already delivering many more apprenticeships. Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that businesses themselves play the major role in increasing the number and quality of apprenticeships?
Nick Boles
I am really delighted that Suffolk authorities and the chamber of commerce have created that service. A number of authorities around the country have created similar things—apprenticeship hubs and the like—and such interventions by local authorities are incredibly worth while. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, ultimately, we want employers to take control of this: we want employers to develop standards, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned earlier, to control the funding and to ensure that more people get the opportunity of an apprenticeship.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell me three specific things that the Government are doing to encourage apprenticeships in construction, where there is a huge shortage?
Nick Boles
I am absolutely delighted to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman three specific things. First, we are introducing an apprenticeship levy. I would have thought that he might have taken the time to welcome it, because it will require larger employers to make a substantial investment in apprenticeships. Secondly, we have reformed the Construction Leadership Council under new leadership and charged it with taking a very active role in promoting apprenticeships in the sector. Thirdly, I regularly meet the new, very focused leadership team of the Construction Industry Training Board, and I have charged it with focusing on apprenticeships as the key method of delivering high-quality training and further skills.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
12. What steps he is taking to address the shortage of drivers in the road haulage industry.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
Mr Speaker, you can see why I was a little bit nervous about popping up again.
We are working closely with a group of leading sector employers to support the development of a new apprenticeship standard for heavy goods vehicle drivers. The standard will equip apprentices with the driving skills the road haulage industry needs.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Could my hon. Friend name five—no, I will not go there.
Will my hon. Friend work with employers in the road haulage industry to try to incentivise driving as a career choice for young people?
Nick Boles
Yes, I absolutely will. There is a desperate need for more skilled drivers. It is actually a great opportunity for people who are in relatively low-skilled employment. We had a very interesting discussion in the Social Justice Cabinet Committee recently about this being an opportunity, as a very good kind of first employment, for ex-offenders. A Defence Minister has mentioned that it is a great opportunity for people leaving the forces. We need to do more on all sides in the Government.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
What more can the Government do to help haulage companies with the exorbitant fees of £3,500 that are charged to train for HGV licences?
Nick Boles
There is a convention, which we have stuck to for very good reasons, that we do not ask the taxpayer to pay for licences to practise a particular profession. We believe that doing so should be directly in the interests of both the employer and the employee who will benefit from having the licence. However, we are encouraging those companies to develop, and they are working on developing, an apprenticeship standard to include the whole of the rest of the training, which will of course receive substantial support from the taxpayer and from the apprenticeship levy.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
13. When he plans to bring forward proposals to improve access to finance for (a) the smallest businesses and (b) people who are self-employed.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
According to the latest SME Finance Monitor survey, net lending to smaller businesses has recovered substantially since 2014 and businesses are increasingly finding that banks are more willing to lend. In relation to Government assistance, we have provided finance help to small businesses—for example, through 32,800 start-up loans worth £176 million. Turning to the self-employed, Julie Deane, the founder of the Cambridge Satchel Company, is currently carrying out an independent review of self-employment, and I am sure we will welcome her recommendations. We of course need to do more to make sure that everybody knows about the brilliance of the financial tech sector.
Mr Robinson
I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. On small businesses, she will be aware that the Secretary of State visited the west midlands last Friday, accompanied by the Coventry and Warwickshire growth hub. He visited a small company near his constituency, Ricor Ltd—a company that is indicative of why the Government should maintain their positive support for business. Will she assure me, and the business hubs that provide such a good link with those businesses, that that will be the case?
Anna Soubry
I understand from the Secretary of State that that is an excellent company. I agree that these things are really important. It is also incredibly important that we encourage small businesses to consider alternative sources of funding. That is why the FinTech sector is doing so well. We need to get out information about crowdfunding, peer-to-peer, angels and so on, especially at a local level.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that in my constituency, many people go into self-employment and start a small business as one of their first steps into employment. That means that they are unlikely to be familiar with the system. What steps will she take to ensure that people are aware of the options open to them, particularly once the review of self-employment funding finance is completed?
Anna Soubry
Of course, we offer people information. The British Business Bank puts together the various funds that are available to small businesses. One reason why I am in favour of the great devolution deals is that they take that sort of activity right down to the local level. The coming together of local authorities, businesses and local enterprise partnerships enables us to get this sort of information out. The Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce also have a huge role to play, because they do excellent work, often at a local level.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
15. What recent discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary on the effect on businesses of the UK’s membership of the EU.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
I work closely with the Foreign Secretary, particularly through the exports taskforce, which I chair, to deliver growth for British business. UK businesses send 45% of their exports to the EU and benefit from the single market. The reforms that we are pursuing are good for the EU, good for the UK and good for British business.
Julie Elliott
Some 160,000 jobs in the north-east rely on trade with the EU. We are the only region in the country consistently to deliver a trade surplus. What assurances can the Secretary of State give my constituents, many of whom are understandably concerned about what an isolated Britain on the fringes of Europe might mean for their jobs and livelihoods? Will he vote to stay in the EU and stand up for British jobs?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady has some excellent manufacturers and other companies in her constituency, including Nissan, which recently announced a huge investment. What business wants in respect of the EU is more certainty and reform, so it welcomes the reforms that we are fighting for, and the certainty that the referendum will bring.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
One of the biggest impacts on UK businesses comes from the EU social chapter. As recently as 2010, the Conservative manifesto said that we would “negotiate the return” of power over “employment legislation”. Is that still going to happen, or have we gone backwards in our ambition?
Sajid Javid
We have set out our priorities in respect of making the whole EU, not just Britain, more competitive. They include cutting red tape and having more free trade agreements. We have set out those priorities in detail. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say and will reflect on it.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
My first and foremost priority in recent weeks has been to do what I can to help the steel industry. I pushed for and was granted an emergency meeting of the Council of Ministers, which took place in Brussels yesterday and led to a number of actions being agreed. I reiterate our support for the people in Redcar, Scunthorpe, Lanarkshire and elsewhere who have lost their jobs recently. This is an extremely difficult time for all who are affected. I say to them: we are resolutely on your side.
Nigel Mills
Many businesses in the construction sector in my constituency are still suffering from excessive levels of retention being taken by prime contractors. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage the phasing out of retention before the 2025 deadline?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend raises an important point that a number of people have made to me recently. Cash retention is a common practice that can provide insurance for customers against poor workmanship. However, the scope for misuse is clear. That is why the Government have commissioned a review of the practice. We will see what action we can take.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Further education has already been weakened by five years of Government funding cuts, so why are Ministers having hasty, half-cocked area reviews that threaten forced course and college closures? Figures released by the Library today suggest that the Chancellor is demanding at least £1.6 billion in FE cuts, and a new Green Paper proposes free-for-all providers that would threaten colleges’ higher education teaching. Are Ministers doing anything to stop FE being the spending review’s whipping boy?
Sajid Javid
We have discussed this issue previously. As I have said, we want an even stronger FE sector that provides even more opportunities across the country, and local area reviews are essential for that. We need to understand local needs much more carefully, and local reviews will achieve that. We will then be able to offer more opportunities.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
T3. Many English Members of the House, while unable to recall individual results in the tournament, were extremely proud that England hosted the rugby world cup this year. What does my right hon. Friend estimate is the positive economic impact of hosting the rugby world cup?
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise (Anna Soubry)
Independent consultants—EY, the old Ernst & Young—estimated pre-tournament that the rugby world cup would attract more than 460,000 international visitors to England and Wales, which is the highest ever number for a world cup. That, apparently, would add up to £1 billion to the United Kingdom’s GDP, which is excellent, and we will know whether that figure was accurate sometime in May, when the impact statement has been done. By way of an anecdote, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who represents the birthplace of this great game, says that one business in his constituency reported a 250% increase in turnover, purely as a result of this great tournament.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
T2. Wyke sixth-form college in Hull does a vital job for young people in a city that has struggled with educational attainment, and the FE colleges and other post-16 provision in Hull are deemed to be either good or outstanding. Will the Minister guarantee that that vital provision in developing the skills agenda in the city will be protected, and not decimated by the cuts that his Government are likely to propose?
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
We all share a sense of the importance of sixth-form and further education colleges to all our communities, and we all rely on and value those institutions. We need them to be stronger, however, and the area reviews are about enabling those institutions to form arrangements with each other that strengthen them for the future. This will be of less relevance for sixth-form colleges, but for further education colleges, the funding going into apprenticeship training is growing fast. Those colleges have a great opportunity to win a lot of that funding for the future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T4. I wish a happy Diwali to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone celebrating it. Given Narendra Modi’s visit this week, will my right hon. Friend describe the various trade, educational and bilateral arrangements that will be announced, and say what Narendra Modi is looking forward to seeing during this visit?
Sajid Javid
I commend the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years to boost ties between India and Great Britain. A number of commercial announcements will be made during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister. Those will demonstrate the full breadth of the relationship between us and India, and will cover healthcare, energy, financial services and creative industries. That will help to boost both of our economies. Later next month, I will lead a trade mission to boost education exports alongside the Minister for Universities and Science.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T6. In his Green Paper, the Minister says that he wants to improve access to higher education for the most disadvantaged students. Will he match that rhetoric with action and protect the student opportunity fund, which does so much to support young people from across the country in realising their full potential?
The Minister for Universities and Science (Joseph Johnson)
Yes, indeed. In the Green Paper, we set out various proposals on which we want to consult with the sector. I have also announced the creation of a social mobility taskforce, which is to report back to me by Christmas with proposals on how to meet the Prime Minister’s ambitious target of doubling the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who attend university by 2020.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
T7. The Government are making large infrastructure investments in my area, through projects such as the dualling of the A303 and Hinkley Point. I am trying to encourage large-scale inward investment. How can my hon. Friend help us to build on local skills and research and development?
Nick Boles
Through our growth deal with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership, we have invested £6.5 million in the Hinkley Point training agency. Yeovil college and its partners can bid for that funding to build capacity and deliver skills training for Hinkley Point. The LEP is leading work with partners, including Yeovil college, to develop an action plan to deliver the construction skills that the area will need.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
T9. The Minister appears to be a little shy about telling us exactly when the compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries such as steel is likely to be introduced, or whether it will be ahead of the original planned date. While she is thinking about that, will she also give thought to other industries, such as chemicals, ceramics, paper and cement, with a view to providing sufficient compensation for them? They face greater competition, uniquely, because of the high cost of additional UK Government energy and climate change electricity taxes.
Anna Soubry
At yesterday’s excellent meeting held by the Secretary of State in Brussels, the presidency agreed that this matter should be prioritised. We are now waiting for the European Union to sign off on it, and we are told that it will be in a matter of weeks. We are doing everything we can to advance that.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
T10. I welcome the Government’s ambition for 3 million apprenticeship starts in this Parliament—three times the number under the last Labour Administration. As the numbers rise, will the Minister ensure that those apprenticeships provide the high-quality skills that our young people deserve and our employers demand?
Nick Boles
Absolutely. There is no point having 3 million apprenticeships unless they are high quality and add to the skills of the people who take them up. That is why we are introducing new trailblazer standards, developed by employers: apprenticeships have to last at least a year and involve 20% formal off-the-job training. We are also introducing higher-level and degree apprenticeships.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I was at Caparo Atlas Fastenings in my constituency talking to the administrators last Friday. I am sure that the whole House will send their condolences to the Paul family. Will the Minister say what specific steps can be taken to preserve those skilled jobs for the future, given that infrastructure projects are coming up in the west midlands?
Anna Soubry
Of course we always listen to what the local enterprise partnerships are asking us to do, if they need any additional support. As the hon. Lady knows, in relation to steelworkers who have unfortunately been made redundant—notably at Redcar, but with more fears for Scunthorpe and Rotherham—we have put in substantial amounts of public money, specifically to ensure that those highly skilled workers get all the opportunities they need to retrain. The amount for Redcar is £16.5 million, and for Scunthorpe it will start at £3 million. We have already started to work with Rotherham and, if we get more bad news, money will be available for that area.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The issue of switching suppliers is particularly acute in the mobile phone space, where just 6% of users change contracts each year, and many people find it difficult to find the best deals. What plans do the Government have to improve switching and price transparency in the mobile sector?
Nick Boles
The Government are determined to encourage more consumers to vote with their feet in key markets such as energy, banking and mobile phones. We are currently conducting a call for evidence on a set of six switching principles that will make the process quicker and easier for consumers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy—for digital everything—and I will shortly write to the chief executives of mobile telephone companies to encourage them to co-operate fully with those new principles.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Caparo group, which has its headquarters in my constituency and is currently in administration, provides high-quality steel products to the supply chains for both the motor industry and civil aviation. Those products are difficult to source from elsewhere. What will the Minister do to ensure that those companies survive?
Anna Soubry
May I first apologise, because I should have added my condolences to the Paul family on their loss yesterday?
The difficulties in Caparo are not as simple as those involved in the decline in the steel industry, with which we are all familiar. One of the difficulties at the Hartlepool plant, for example, was the decline in oil and gas. We will work with the LEPs—we will work with anyone—to make sure that workers who need extra skills to transfer into new jobs have that opportunity.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
What steps will the Minister take to promote reform of the EU regulations specifically on biotechnology and life science?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. I was yesterday in Brussels with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to convene a summit with European leaders on biosciences. We are pushing for an enlightened regulatory framework to support EU and UK leadership in the fields of food, medicine and energy for global benefit.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
May I ask the Minister why his Department is keeping further education and skills out of the Liverpool city region deal? They are crucial to the Liverpool city region.
Nick Boles
I am not directly responsible for city deals, but there are many such deals around the country that have specifically majored on the inclusion of skills—Manchester and elsewhere. I am happy to look into it, but I am sure it was not because we resisted. Frankly, we are very keen for local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to take a bigger role.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I refer the Minister back to his earlier answer regarding the shortage of heavy goods vehicle drivers? Only last Saturday, my surgery was attended by someone who wanted to establish themselves as a trainer for HGV drivers. Will my hon. Friend look again at the support that such people receive, as it could go a long way to more drivers becoming available?
Nick Boles
When there is an apprenticeship standard for HGV drivers, the company in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be able to offer training to employers for that apprenticeship, and to secure the funding that the Government will provide through the apprenticeship levy and other public resources.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I welcome the decision the Department has made on name-blind applications to university, but the Minister will know that this does little to deal with prejudices of class and race. Postcode, school and being first in the family to go to university are just as important. What progress is being made on contextual data?
Joseph Johnson
It is a priority for the Government to increase the proportion of disadvantaged people going to university. We have brought forward proposals for UCAS to look at, so that for the 2017 admission cycle, we can introduce name-blind applications—an important step to ensuring that application and admission to university is on the basis of merit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
A dazzling array of eager beavers on both sides of the House. I call Mr Robert Jenrick.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
For British businesses operating in highly regulated sectors such as the legal sector, India remains an incredibly restricted market to break into—in many respects, even more so than China. Will the Secretary of State use this week’s visit as a catalyst to move forward long-standing discussions on the service sector?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. Britain and India do a lot of trade together, and there is a lot more we can do if we put our minds to it. These are exactly the kinds of issues we look forward to raising this week.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
As has been well documented in this House, Ministers promised £80 million for retraining and economic development in Redcar. We know now that only £30 million of that will be saved for pension payments. Less than £10 million has been paid out already, and more than 90% of people have received their payments. Will the Minister promise the people of Redcar that what is not spent on redundancies and final salaries will stay in the region and go to the people of Redcar, not be sucked back up to the Treasury?
Anna Soubry
I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady, who rightly fights very hard for her constituents, that only today I met again with my officials and said that I wanted the remaining money to go in tranches to Redcar, so that people there can determine how it will be spent for the benefit of her constituents.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Jack Hammond and Ashley Churchman, two inspiring apprentices who addressed a joint Education and Business, Innovation and Skills Committee seminar last week? Does he agree that apprentices sharing their experiences in this way can demonstrate to businesses the real value of employing apprentices?
Nick Boles
I certainly would like to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituents. As she says, there are no better advocates for apprenticeships than those who have completed them—not a bunch of middle-aged people like us—who can go to their schools and preach the virtues of apprenticeships.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
In the Scottish Government’s programme earlier this year, the First Minister announced three new innovation centres for Scotland across Europe, one of which will be based here, in the great European capital city of London. How do the Government plan to support that centre, to ensure that Scottish businesses compete on the world stage?
Joseph Johnson
We continue to support innovation across the UK. I was pleased to be in Glasgow 10 days ago, laying the turf for a new innovation centre, the Imaging Centre of Excellence, in the University of Glasgow. Scotland punches above its weight with regard to research funding—it has an 11% share of it, whereas it has an 8% share of the population—and I hope it continues to do so.
Petition
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition on the funding formula for Leicestershire constabulary, which was collected over the past 10 days. Of course, that was prior to the Government’s decision, because of the problems we heard about in the urgent question on Monday, to pause the formula to allow local constabularies to make fresh representations. Happily, that is exactly what the Government decided to do on Monday, so I present the petition in celebration: the results of the petition have already been accepted and there will be a further review.
I thank the 216 people who signed the petition, which was collected by volunteers in the north Leicester area: Sanjeev Sharma, Baljeet Singh and Pradeep Dullabh. I also thank Councillors Mo Chohan, Manjula Sood, Ross Willmott and Rita Patel for their support.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that current proposals to change Leicestershire’s policing budget through the revision of the funding formula as well as other cuts could jeopardise the safety of thousands of residents; further that this will result in an unacceptable loss of £700,000 from the force’s budget; and further that the proposals will lead to fewer officers keeping Leicester safe and give a green light to criminals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately review the proposed funding formula for Leicestershire Constabulary.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001553]
Europe: Renegotiation
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s EU renegotiation.
As the House knows, the Government were elected with a mandate to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU, ahead of an in/out referendum to be held by the end of 2017, and since July, technical talks have taken place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. Today, the Prime Minister has written to the President of the European Council to set out the changes we want, and we have laid a written ministerial statement, including a copy of that letter, hard copies of which are available in the Vote Office.
I would now like to offer the House further detail. The Prime Minister’s speech at Bloomberg three years ago set out a vision for the future of the EU. Three years on, his central argument remains more persuasive than ever: the EU needs to change. Increasingly, others, too, have recognised this. Only a fortnight ago, Chancellor Merkel said that British concerns were German concerns as well. The purpose of the Prime Minister’s letter today is not to describe the precise means, including the detailed legal amendments, for effecting our reforms—that is a matter for the renegotiation itself; what matters to us is finding solutions. The agreement must be legally binding and irreversible and, where necessary, have force in the treaties.
We are seeking reform in four main areas. The first is economic governance. Measures that the eurozone countries need to take to secure the long-term future of their currency will affect all EU members. These are real concerns, as demonstrated by the proposal we saw off this summer to bail out Greece using contributions from non-euro members. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have set out, any long-term solution should be underpinned by certain principles and should include a safeguard mechanism to ensure that these principles are respected and enforced. The principles should include recognition that the EU has more than one currency; that there should be no discrimination or disadvantage for any business on the basis of currency; that taxpayers in non-euro countries should never be financially liable for supporting eurozone members; that any changes the eurozone needs to make, such as the creation of a banking union, should never be compulsory for non-euro countries; that financial stability and supervision should be a key area of competence for national institutions, such as the Bank of England, for non-euro members, just as those matters have become a key area of competence for eurozone institutions, such as the European Central Bank; and that any issues affecting all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states.
Secondly, we want an even more determined focus on improving Europe’s competitiveness. Unemployment, especially youth unemployment, in Europe is still too high. Unless Europe can raise its game on competitiveness, the challenges we all face from global competition and digital technology will pose a serious risk that the next generation of Europeans will not be able to afford the living standards, social protections or public services that our citizens take for granted. We therefore welcome the European Commission’s focus on competitiveness. The number of legislative proposals has been cut by 80%, while more regulatory proposals have been taken off the table this year than ever before. Progress has been made towards a single digital market and a capital markets union, as well as in last month’s Commission trade strategy. But we need to go further. The burden from existing regulation remains too high. Just as we have secured the first-ever real-terms cut in the EU budget, so we should set a target to cut the total burden on business. This should be part of a clear strategic commitment that brings forward all the various proposals, promises and agreements on European competitiveness.
Thirdly, we come to sovereignty. As the Prime Minister said at Bloomberg and as we have stressed many times since, too many people in the UK, and in other member states too, feel that the EU is something done to them. In his letter, my right hon. Friend makes three proposals to address this. First, we want to end the United Kingdom’s obligation to work towards an ever closer union as set out in the treaties. For many British people, this simply reinforces the sense of being dragged against our will towards a political union. Secondly, we want to enable national Parliaments to work together to block unwanted European legislation, building on the arrangements already in the treaties. Thirdly, we want to see the EU’s commitment to subsidiarity fully implemented, with clear proposals to achieve that. We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. As the Dutch have said, the ambition should be “Europe where necessary, but national where possible.”
Fourthly, I want to turn to the issue of welfare and immigration. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech last November, we believe in an open economy, which includes the principle of free movement to work, and I am proud that people from every country can find their community here in the United Kingdom. But the issue is one of scale and of speed. The pressure that the current level of inward migration puts upon our public services is too great, and also has a profound effect on those member states whose most highly qualified citizens have emigrated.
The Prime Minister’s letter again sets out our proposals to address this. We need to ensure that where new countries are admitted to the EU, free movement will not apply until their economies have converged much more closely with existing member states. We need to crack down on all abuse of free movement. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages, and stronger powers to deport criminals to stop them coming back and to prevent them from entering in the first place. It also includes dealing with the situation whereby it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than for a British citizen to do the same.
We must also reduce the pull factor drawing migrants to the UK to take low-skilled jobs, expecting their salary to be subsidised by the state from day one. We have proposed that people coming to Britain should live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing, and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The Government are open to different ways of dealing with these issues, but we do need to secure arrangements that deliver on our commitments to fair and controlled migration.
Let me say something briefly about the next steps. There will now be a process of formal negotiation with the European institutions and with all 27 European partners, leading to substantive discussion at the December European Council. The Prime Minister’s aim is to conclude an agreement at the earliest opportunity, but his priority is to ensure that the substance is right. It is progress on the substance in this renegotiation that will determine the timing of the referendum itself.
The Government fully recognise the close interest from Members on all sides of the House. We cannot provide a running commentary on an ongoing negotiation, but we will continue to engage fully with the wide range of parliamentary inquiries, now numbering, I believe, 12 across both Houses of Parliament, into the renegotiation. Documents will be submitted for scrutiny in line with normal practices, and the Foreign Secretary, other Ministers and I will continue to appear regularly before the relevant Select Committees. Of course, the European Union Referendum Bill will return to the House before long.
The Prime Minister has said and he repeated this morning that should his concerns fall on deaf ears, he rules nothing out, but he also believes that meaningful reform in the areas that I have described would benefit our economic and our national security, provide a fresh settlement for the UK’s membership of the European Union, and offer a basis on which to campaign to keep the United Kingdom as a member of a reformed European Union—and it is that which remains the Government’s objective. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for updating the House, and for giving me advance sight of his statement.
The decision on whether or not the United Kingdom will remain a member of the European Union is the biggest decision that the country will make for a generation. Labour Members are clear about the fact that Britain is a more powerful, prosperous and secure country as a result of its membership of the EU, and we want to see it play a full role in shaping a reformed and better Europe that deepens its single market in areas such as digital and services, offers more hope and jobs to its young people, uses its collective strength in trade with the rest of the world, and stands together to combat the urgent security problems that we face. We do not stand for the nationalism that says that we would be better off out, or for a Brexit that would see Britain weaker in power and influence, and diminished in the eyes of the world.
In his speech this morning and in the letter to the President of the European Council, the Prime Minister set out his negotiating agenda. As we have already heard in comments from his own Back Benchers, the problem that the Prime Minister faces—and, in fact, the reason he has been so reluctant to put his position down on paper until now—is that there is nothing he can renegotiate that will satisfy the large number of right hon. and hon. Members sitting behind him who want to take Britain out of the European Union at all costs. They are desperate to be disappointed, and they are here in the House today. Their only role in this debate is to push for demands that they know will not be met.
The agenda that was published today raises important issues including some that were in our own election manifesto, such as protection for the rights of non-eurozone countries and those of national Parliaments. It also includes other ideas which are already in train. May I now ask the Minister to respond to some specific questions?
It is right that we press for guarantees for non-eurozone members in the future. Our manifesto argued for that, and it is in our economic interests. Does the Minister agree, however, that it would be a mistake for Britain, in so doing, to volunteer or embrace some kind of second-class or associate membership of the EU, while still paying the full costs of membership? Would not such an outcome weaken Britain rather than strengthening our position?
Why is there so little in the agenda about jobs and growth for the future, given that the problem with which Europe has been struggling for some time has been low growth and high unemployment? The Minister has talked of reducing the burden on business. Can he guarantee that nothing in this agenda will reduce the hard-won employment rights that have been agreed at European level over the years, including rights to paid leave, rights for part-time workers, and fair pay for temporary and agency workers? Does he accept that it would be a huge mistake to try to build support for a reformed European Union on the back of a bonfire of workers’ rights?
We note the retreat from earlier statements and hints from the Prime Minister that he would seek an emergency brake or an end to the principle of free movement. Is the Prime Minister set on the four-year timescale for access to in-work benefits, or is that subject to negotiation at the European Council? Will the Minister also tell us specifically whether it would mean a change in EU legislation, or a change in the way in which the system works here in the UK?
Does the Minister agree that it is for those who wish to reject the agenda as too little—many of whom are sitting behind him, and who are determined to take Britain out of the EU—to state clearly to the British people what being out would mean for our jobs, for our trade, for our investment, for our employment rights, and for our national security?
Of course the European Union faces big challenges in recovering from the eurozone crisis, offering more hope for the future, and dealing with the urgent and immediate refugee crisis that it faces, but we believe that those challenges will be best met if Britain plays a leading role in the future of the European Union, and if we use our power and influence with others to overcome them.
There is a broader case that goes far beyond those four points about Britain’s place in the world and the EU, and that case has to be made. Our history is not the same as that of many other member states, and perhaps we will never look at these issues through precisely the same eyes, but that is not the same as wanting to leave. Reform is essential. It should be an ongoing process, not a single event, and Labour Members will keep arguing for a Britain that is engaged with the world, using its power and influence to the maximum and not walking away from a partnership that we have been members of for 40 years and which has brought many benefits to the people and the economy of this country.
Mr Lidington
The right hon. Gentleman asked four specific questions and I will deal with them in turn.
On relations between EU and non-EU members, we do need to have, as part of this negotiation, safeguards against any risk of caucusing by eurozone countries, who if they chose to act as a caucus could command an automatic qualified majority within Council of Ministers meetings. There are clearly going to be some issues that derive directly from a currency union where eurozone countries quite legitimately will want to talk among themselves, and it is going to be important that we have a deal that allows the eurozone to do the work of integration it is going to need to do, but which properly safeguards the integrity of the single market of 28 members and decision making across the board in terms of the EU responsibilities in respect of the 28.
The right hon. Gentleman teased me a little about the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I have to say that when I have appeared before some of the Committees of this House, I have encountered Opposition Members who are equally committed to British withdrawal from the EU. The truth is that this is a matter—[Interruption.] Indeed, I am reminded that the Labour party leader, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), has not been renowned for his enthusiasm for British membership of the EU. This issue has legitimately cut across party divisions for as long as EU membership has been a concern in the UK. People within both parties hold honourable, principled views both for and against British membership, and I think that that is likely always to be the case.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the challenge of low growth. I think that not only what the Government are saying in this renegotiation, but what they have led and helped to shape within the EU ever since 2010, demonstrates the seriousness with which we take this issue. I know the Prime Minister was personally involved in the negotiation that clinched the deal on an EU-Korea free trade agreement, something that is now proving of immense value to British industry. It is the British Government who have helped to energise the debate towards a digital single market across Europe, something that will give small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as large companies, increased opportunities.
No Conservative Member wants to make, in the right hon. Gentleman’s words, a bonfire of workers’ rights, but we also need to have in mind the reality that other countries that have chosen to go for a much more regulated approach to the employment market have often, tragically, suffered much higher levels of unemployment than we have in the UK. Keeping the UK’s opt-out from the working time directive, for example, is something we will fight very hard to make sure is entrenched by this renegotiation.
On freedom of movement, the Prime Minister made his view very clear: our objective is to better control migration from within the EU. There are obviously different ways in which we could achieve that. We think we can do that by reducing the incentives offered by our welfare system, which is why my right hon. Friend set out proposals in November and repeated them today. Others in the EU have concerns about this, and that is why we say to them, “If that’s what you think, put forward alternative proposals that deliver the same result.” It is the outcome of the measures—controlled, fair and properly managed migration—that is the end that we seek.
Finally, on the question of what is meant by “out”, the Prime Minister said again this morning that he did not think either the Swiss or Norwegian models would be right for the UK. The question of what “out” might mean will be a key element in the forthcoming referendum debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A very large number of Members are seeking to catch my eye, and that was entirely to be expected. In order to have any chance of accommodating them, brevity will be of the essence.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the big issue that will be settled in this forthcoming referendum is how best this country is to protect its national interests and security in the modern world and how best to enhance our prosperity for the next 30 or 50 years? Will he seek to ensure that we do not lose sight of that when we address current events?
While our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is embarking on very important negotiations—and I wish him success on competitiveness in particular—will the Minister for Europe ensure that when we are negotiating the benefit rights of those foreign nationals who work alongside British people in employment in this country, we remember the interests of the 2 million or so British nationals who live and work in the EU and do not wish to see those Governments start to discriminate against our nationals in their tax and benefits systems?
Mr Lidington
The answer to my right hon. and learned Friend’s second point is certainly yes, the interests of British people are always at the heart of this Government’s thinking about any area of policy, and we will certainly continue to treat the national, economic and security interests of the UK as the core objective of every aspect of this European negotiation.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for making an oral statement to the House and for forward sight of his statement.
What a difference a year makes: just last year Scots were being told that if we voted yes to independence we would be getting chucked out of the EU, and now, frankly, we could not be closer to the exit.
The Minister said earlier that there would be a process of formal negotiation with the Europeans. Will he make a commitment to us today to consult the devolved Administrations as a formal part of that negotiation? He also said, quoting the Dutch:
“European where necessary, national where possible.”
Will that include devolving the powers, where appropriate, to the devolved Administrations? Finally, will the Minister tell us what on Scotland’s agenda for reform has been included in this statement today?
Mr Lidington
Of course, we were voting to give additional devolved powers to Scotland only yesterday in this House. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I spoke to Minister Fiona Hyslop this morning, and the question of the reform and renegotiation is now on the agenda as the first item at every meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe which I chair and which includes Ministers from all the devolved Administrations. I am visiting Edinburgh tomorrow when I will have further conversations with the Scottish Government of the type the hon. Gentleman urges upon me, and as I said to Ms Hyslop this morning, I remain open to listen to the views of, and make sure the UK Government take full account of the interests of, all three devolved Administrations as we take this negotiation forward.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Minister is, if I may say so, not correct in thinking that the legal mechanisms for delivery of these proposals are not part of the solution. Does he not accept that treaty change is needed for virtually every proposal and, furthermore, that treaty change is not on offer, so how are the so-called legally irreversible changes going to be made when even the legal expert from the European Commission says that the Danish and Irish precedents are not valid? How is he going to be able to sell this pig in a poke?
Mr Lidington
Some but not all aspects of the package of reforms that we are seeking will need treaty change. We are certainly looking at different models, including those that have been used by Denmark and Ireland in the past. The technical talks that have taken place in Brussels involving senior British officials have also involved representatives of the institutional legal services, so we are working closely alongside the current heads of the legal services of the institutions. We believe that we will be able to find an appropriate way forward on every one of the issues that I listed in my statement.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Further to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), will the Minister acknowledge that other EU citizens living here contribute far more through their taxes than they receive in services or social security payments? The problem with social security is not the EU; it is the fact that, almost uniquely, we in the UK have lost the contributory principle from our system. The answer is to start to reintroduce that principle.
Mr Lidington
I would certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the debate about migration controls, it is important that we do not stray into stigmatising people from elsewhere in Europe, or from any other part of the world, who are here obeying the law, working and contributing to life in this country. He mentioned the contributory principle, but that point could also apply to policy pursued under successive British Governments of all political stripes. I draw his attention back to article 153 of the treaty, which makes it clear that it is for member states, rather than the EU, to define the fundamental principles of their social security systems. I believe that it would contradict that treaty provision if we were to say that only one model for social security was compatible.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Minister has described different legal mechanisms for achieving our objectives. Will he tell us what they are?
Mr Lidington
No. That is a matter for the detailed negotiations that are now under way. The technical talks have given us a menu of options to help us determine, in respect of particular reforms, whether we would be able to rely on secondary legislation, on treaty change, on protocols or on political commitment. That menu of options will now be available to the Heads of Government as they embark on the political negotiations. The purpose of the technical talks has been to ensure that leaders are informed about the legal and procedural solutions that are available, so that they do not have to start that work from scratch when they are in a leaders’ meeting.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. Will the Minister tell us which treaty provision he intends to use for that purpose, and if he does not have one, will he negotiate a new one?
Mr Lidington
In my statement, I described the areas in which we are seeking change. If the right hon. Lady looks at what the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, she will see that he spoke of making the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality more of a reality, and of establishing an agreed mechanism within the EU system to ensure that we not only look at new proposals coming out of the Commission but have a means of reviewing regularly the existing exercise of competences and deciding which competences that are currently exercised at EU level no longer need to be exercised at that level.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Do we not have to control our own borders in order to fulfil the popular Conservative promise to cut net migration by more than two thirds during this Parliament? Should not we decide what the rules are, and apply them fairly to the whole world, rather than distinguishing between Europe and non-Europe?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been completely consistent in saying that he accepts the basic principle of freedom of movement for workers, but that that should not become a freedom to choose the most attractive welfare system in the European Union. On our estimate, something like 40% of the people who are here from elsewhere in the EU are receiving benefits or tax credits of some kind, and action on that front will have a significant effect on the pull factor that our welfare system exercises at the moment.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. He has already set much store by treaty change, but the Council of Ministers and the European Commission constantly break their own solemn word, and their treaties, in matters that are fundamental to them, so why should we put our faith or our trust in any changes that they might agree to?
Mr Lidington
When matters are made the subject of treaty change, they become binding in European and international law. There have been occasions, particularly in regard to the development of the single market, when British interests have been safeguarded by the existence of treaty provisions relating to discrimination against a country’s products in the single market. For example, we went through the European process in order to secure the lifting of the beef export ban. There is a stronger element of protection there than the hon. Gentleman might think.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Further to that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of a single market for services would be a big prize for British business, and that it would create many jobs? Does he also agree that that can be achieved only by being within the European Union?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have a single market for goods, and it is working pretty well, but the single market for services is woefully underdeveloped, despite the fact that in every European economy, it will be the services sectors from which the new jobs and the new growth will come. We need to seek determined action in that area.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
The Prime Minister has paid the usual lip service to the EU’s crisis of competitiveness, but, rather like what happened under his predecessor, Tony Blair, 15 years ago, nothing has changed. The Minister’s own officials are growing weary of initiatives that fail to tackle Euro-sclerosis. What exactly is going to be different this time? Will the Minister spell out the details of the plans that will magically make the EU more competitive?
Mr Lidington
If there is one thing that does not change, it is the nature of the hon. Gentleman’s interventions on this subject. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary and I have spoken frequently on the agenda on competitiveness, and I would be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a sheaf of speeches if he would like me to. Broadly, this is about three things. It is about cutting the cost of unnecessary red tape and regulation on all businesses, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is about deepening the single market, particularly in digital and in services, where it is underdeveloped at the moment. And it is about forging ambitious new trade agreements with other countries and other regions of the world, for their benefit and ours. These are the opportunities that British business has urged us to take, and this Government are determined not to follow but to lead on these matters in the European debate.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend avoid using up his limited bargaining power to obtain purely symbolic changes such as removing the words “ever closer union”, given that they have never been invoked by the European Court against Britain or used to require any other member state to move in an integrationist direction? They have even been dropped from the constitutional treaty. Will he instead focus on getting back any powers that are not required to run a common trading area, so that we in this Parliament can make more of our own laws and hold our lawmakers to account?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has always said that he is seeking a deal on reform that is substantive. That will be challenging to negotiate, and I do not want any Member to think that these reforms will somehow fall easily into our lap. There will be some tough negotiations ahead.
The importance of the words on “ever closer union” is that they encapsulate the fact that the EU at the moment is insufficiently flexible, still thinking of a single destination on integration for all its member states. As the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we need to see a much greater acceptance of the diversity of Europe at the moment. We need to see a readiness to live and let live, accepting that some countries will want to integrate more closely but others will wish to stand apart from that and that the decisions of each group should be properly respected.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister said that the agreement must be legally binding and irreversible. Will he clarify what he means by “irreversible”? Does it mean what happened in the case of the John Major opt-out on the social chapter, which was then reversed by the Tony Blair Government? Does it mean that no future democratically elected Government would be able to reverse a decision taken at this time by this Government?
Mr Lidington
Obviously, as Parliament is sovereign, not least in the fact that EU law has direct effect in the UK only because of Acts of Parliament—decisions of this House—the irreversibility of any decision any Government take on anything is limited. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are keen to avoid a repeat of the sort of thing that happened over the European financial stabilisation mechanism earlier this year, when, in the heat of a crisis in the eurozone, a deal that had been solemnly agreed by all 28 member states in December 2010 suddenly appeared to be at risk and came up for discussion in a meeting where only 19 member Governments were gathered together. That is not the way in which we can do business in Europe in the future.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend must know that this is pretty thin gruel—it is much less than people had come to expect from the Government. It takes out a few words from the preamble but does nothing about the substance of the treaties; it deals with competition, for which the European Commission itself has a proposal; and it fails to restore control of our borders. It seems to me that its whole aim is to make Harold Wilson’s renegotiation look respectable. It needs to do more; it needs to have a full list of powers that will be restored to the United Kingdom and to this Parliament, not vacuously to Parliaments plural.
Mr Lidington
The problem with the idea of a unilateral national parliamentary veto, which my hon. Friend advocates, is that it would mean that, for example, the most protectionist Parliament in any one member state could veto every deregulatory and every single market measure that the United Kingdom believed was profoundly in the interests of our people and our prosperity. Such a unilateral veto would be incompatible even with the arrangements that Norway and Switzerland have with the European Union. I just say to him that if he had had the privilege and responsibility of sitting at Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels, a responsibility that he may well indeed enjoy at some future stage of his career, he would be less sanguine about what he terms the unambitious nature of what we are proposing. What we are proposing is going to require some very tough negotiating indeed.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is ridiculous that the Prime Minister is putting the referendum to the British people but he cannot explain what the British people are voting for. If they are voting out but they are not voting for the arrangements Norway or Switzerland have, what is it that the British people are voting for?
Mr Lidington
That will be a question for those who are campaigning for out to make clear when the referendum comes. A number of studies have been published on what various options for British engagement with Europe would look like. As for the Government, we are relentlessly focused on securing a successful outcome to this negotiation and delivering the reformed Europe that the British people want.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Removing the commitment to “ever closer union” will be nothing more than a rhetorical gesture unless it is backed by a radical shake-up of the way the EU takes its decisions. Does the Minister agree that most EU legislation is stitched up between the Commission, the European Parliament and member states behind closed doors, in the impenetrable process known as “trilogue”, and is currently acting as an integrationist ratchet? What specific proposals do the Government have for halting and reversing that ratchet?
Mr Lidington
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, we certainly think we need a new mechanism in the EU’s system for working that guards against that ratchet and provides for the opportunity to review and reallocate powers that do not need to be exercised at a European level. The pamphlet recently published by my hon. Friend provides some constructive and imaginative suggestions as to how we might take that forward.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister, in his letter, welcomes last month’s new EU trade strategy. Will the Government first carry out an assessment of how these trade deals would be affected by his wider demands for economic reform? Will the Minister confirm that it is his understanding of the recent remarks by Michael Froman, the US trade representative, that if the UK were to leave the EU, we would not be able to negotiate an independent trade deal with the United States?
Mr Lidington
I heard what Mr Froman said. Obviously, he is a senior official in the current US Administration, so one has to take what he says seriously. On the general point the hon. Lady makes, we see further moves forward in free trade deals as an important element in securing the reformed European Union that we want. The potential deal with the US is the most ambitious and most far reaching in its consequences of any of those, but I welcome the fact that the Commission’s trade strategy is also talking about forging new trade deals with some of the emerging economies and also with our good allies and partners in Australia and New Zealand.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
In this year, as we mark the 750th anniversary of the first English Parliament—some of our continental partners are rather newcomers to this concept—may I suggest to my right hon. Friend that unless we return powers to this Parliament, this exercise will not be worth while, for it is in this Parliament that authority ultimately should reside, on behalf of the British people? Can he therefore explain to us how on earth this new arrangement, whereby groups of national Parliaments acting together can stop unwanted legislative proposals, is going to work?
Mr Lidington
I share my hon. Friend’s love of English history, but I caution him against seeing Simon de Montfort as a true-born Englishman. The direct answer to his question is that the treaties already provide for a mechanism whereby a group of national Parliaments can demand and secure a review by the Commission of a measure the Commission is bringing forward. We think one option we should be looking at is turning such an arrangement above a certain threshold into an outright veto—a red card rather than a yellow card.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Speaking as the chair of the parliamentary Labour party’s pro-EU group, which has more than 210 members, including the whole of the shadow Cabinet and the leader of the Labour party, I can tell the House that we are united behind staying in a Europe which is reforming and progressive. The Minister has said that if the Prime Minister does not get his own way, he rules nothing out, so if we leave Europe, what does that mean for the UK?
Mr Lidington
Clearly, when the negotiations are over the Government will make their assessment and their recommendation clear, setting out in detail their reasons for coming to that view, including their assessment of what alternative options there might be and the Government’s view on those. I do not think therefore that the hon. Gentleman has anything to fear. Our focus remains on a successful outcome to these negotiations, which we believe will deliver a reformed Europe—that is what the British people want to see.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The clarity and ambition of the reforms that the Minister have outlined demonstrate that there is a big job of work to do. They also remind us just how important British leadership of the European Union has been. I am referring here to the introduction of the single market in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and the extension of that market, hopefully soon, because of the conclusion of those reforms. Does the Minister agree that our real ambition is to restate Britain’s leadership of the European Union in conjunction with other nation states so that we can bring about an innovative, modern and responsive economy that will benefit us all?
Mr Lidington
I agree with my hon. Friend. If we look back at the European Union’s history, we can take pride in the fact that two of its greatest achievements—building a single market across Europe and enlarging the European Union to embrace the new democracies of eastern and central Europe—were very much brought about by British leadership and, in particular, by the personal drive of Margaret Thatcher. What he says is important and the Government very much share the spirit in which he posed his question.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am relieved that the Prime Minister has finally outlined his negotiating stance, and I wish him every success with it, because I want him to be able to bang the drum enthusiastically for our EU membership. Will the Minister confirm that, if meaningful reform is secured, the Prime Minister and the European Union will not have to deliver fully on all the fronts set out in the Prime Minister’s letter, including on in-work benefits, for the Prime Minister to be able to campaign vigorously in favour of the UK’s continued EU membership, the benefits of which were clearly set out in the EU’s balance of competences review?
Mr Lidington
We will need to have a satisfactory outcome that meets our requirements on all four of the areas of policies that I have described. Our position on welfare and migration remains as the Prime Minister set out in November and as he repeated this morning.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I note the constraints suggested by the Prime Minister that the free movement of peoples is not working and will never work. Even Sweden and Germany are realising that today. Would not a visa system for all be fairer and safeguard our borders?
Mr Lidington
The Home Office always keeps our visa arrangements under review, but I ask my hon. Friend to think about the consequences for the way in which both business and tourism operate between us and our neighbours in other democracies in Europe were there to be individual visas of the sort that he has described. It would certainly have to apply in reverse to British tourists and business visitors as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am very keen to accommodate colleagues, but progress is leisurely—some might even describe it as lethargic. As I like guessing games and want to encourage Members to think, let me suggest that if they could model their contributions on those of the right hon. Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), progress would be altogether speedier.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for early sight of it. In his statement, he used the phrase “salary to be subsidised by the state.” How will the Government differentiate legally between salaries subsidised by the state for foreigners and tax credits to hand out to UK citizens?
Mr Lidington
Those are all matters that will be addressed during the course of the negotiations.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that ensuring full permanent access to the single market without joining the euro is a key objective for our future economic health and would be a key sign that our continued membership of a reformed European Union gives us the best of both worlds—prosperity and flexibility?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend put that very well, and getting that best of both worlds is exactly what the Prime Minister is seeking to do.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I was very pleased to hear in the Prime Minister’s letter that he hopes to be in a position to campaign with all his “heart and soul” to keep Britain in the European Union, but any negotiation requires priorities. What are the Prime Minister’s priorities?
Mr Lidington
The Prime Minister’s priorities are the four policy objectives that he set out this morning, and that I repeated in my statement today.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
After all the statements made by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary, and the former Foreign Secretary about being in Europe and not being run by Europe, and after all the pledges to restore the primacy of national Parliaments and to get an opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights to restore our borders, is that it? Is that the sum total of the Government’s position in this renegotiation? Is not the onus on those who advocate that we should stay in the European Union to explain why we should put up with being a second-tier country in an increasingly centralised European Union, paying more and more, and losing more and more control?
Mr Lidington
Just on the charter of fundamental rights, the Prime Minister did refer to that in his speech this morning. It is an issue that we will be seeking to address through the forthcoming British Bill of Rights. I think that my hon. Friend underestimates how demanding and how far reaching the proposal that we have made will be. The Danish Prime Minister said this morning that what the Prime Minister proposed was
“a good basis for concrete negotiations”
but that “it will be difficult”. I hope that we succeed because we need a strong UK in the European Union.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
How will the Minister ensure that investment will not be impacted by the uncertainty that will precede an EU referendum, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is in a unique situation, with a land border with a south of Ireland that will continue to be part of the European Union?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady is right, and it is one reason why I regard it as an important responsibility on my part to keep in very close contact with what the three devolved Administrations—in this case the Northern Ireland Executive—are thinking. At the moment, there are no signs that the flow of foreign direct investment is drying up. In fact it is still the case that the United Kingdom gets a bigger share of third country direct investment into the European Union than any other member state.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Given that my right hon. Friend has conceded that several elements of the Prime Minister’s letter will require treaty change, will he tell the House what is his best estimate of the length of time that that change will take, even if it were miraculously to be immediately agreed?
Mr Lidington
I do not blame my right hon. Friend for asking what is a legitimate question, but that is something that we will be talking about in the context of the negotiations. Clearly, it is true—this is what I think lays behind his question—that each member state will have its own constitutional arrangements for ratifying any new treaty.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Has the Prime Minister told the Minister of State the date by which he will make up his mind and tell us which way he will go in this referendum? If we are voting to leave the EU, why has he not set out exactly what we are voting for?
Mr Lidington
The Prime Minister will make his position clear at the end of the negotiations. It would seem slightly odd to embark on a process of negotiations and declare at the beginning what the outcome was going to be.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Minister tell us whether we or Europe should decide on how many migrants come to the UK?
Mr Lidington
We are seeking a situation in which we have tougher rules against the abuse of freedom of movement by criminals, fraudsters and others. We also want to reduce significantly the pull factor that our welfare system provides at present.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister referred to working together to block unwanted European legislation. Our fishing industry has been subject to some of the most unwarranted European legislation, giving us more red tape, more bureaucracy, fewer fishing boats and fewer jobs. Our fishing sector just wants control over local fishing waters; it does not want the EU to have that control. Will the Minister tell us what has been done to help our fishermen?
Mr Lidington
I think that we have demonstrated, through our actions as well as our words, our support for the UK fishing community. I am talking about the reform of the common fisheries policy that British Ministers helped to secure last year. That has led to a ban on the practice of discarding, which is something that British Governments of all colours have been trying to achieve for decades, and a shift towards more local and regional management of fisheries than was the case in the past.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
What has not been included in the statement is far more important than what has been included. There is nothing about regaining control over our trade deals with the rest of the world, nothing about regaining control over farming, fisheries, regional aid or state aid and nothing about ending the free movement of people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that today will be looked back on as the day when it became clear that the renegotiation amounts to no more than tinkering around the edges, and fundamentally on great areas of policy this country will still finish up being told what to do by the rest of the EU?
Mr Lidington
No, I do not, on two counts. First, my hon. Friend understates the significance of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has proposed. Secondly, this is a matter in the end for the British people, not me, the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House, and if they decide to stay in a reformed European Union, the responsibility of this and any future British Government will be not to be passive but to lead the debate within Europe and secure outcomes that benefit the security and prosperity of the British people.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
As the Minister did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), can I ask again what specifically from Scotland’s agenda for EU reform has been included in the Government’s negotiations?
Mr Lidington
The last time I talked to Scottish Ministers about their proposals, they were very keen on measures to deepen the single market in services and digital, which would provide major benefits to Scotland, and to take forward new free trade deals with countries around the world. I remind the hon. Gentleman that greater access to foreign markets for the Scotch whisky industry is something that the United Kingdom Government consistently put at the forefront of our own input into the Brussels discussions.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
If the result of the EU referendum is to be enduring, it must not be on the basis of a false prospectus. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give us an assurance that any changes that are agreed will be properly legally binding and not subject to a fudge when the referendum is over?
Mr Lidington
The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we need to have outcomes that make sure that whatever package of reforms can be achieved, assuming that the negotiations are successful, they are legally binding and irreversible, for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend gives.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
There has been a lot of speculation about an early referendum. Without a running commentary, will the Minister set out the essential steps and the timetable necessary to make it possible to hold a referendum next year?
Mr Lidington
We need to have the European Referendum Bill on the statute book and to have concluded the European negotiations. When both those criteria have been fulfilled, we need to allow time for secondary legislation that appoints a specific date to go through both Houses of Parliament, and after that we need to allow for a campaign period of a minimum of 10 weeks.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Europe’s economies will eventually return to growth, so is it not in the national interest of our continental European partners to support the Prime Minister in seeking to reduce in-work benefits and in turn to reduce the brain-drain out of Europe?
Mr Lidington
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite a tragic predicament to find many highly qualified, very well-educated young men and women who feel that they have no option but to take an unskilled, low-paid job in another European country because they cannot find work at home. The long-term answer to that challenge must in large part lie in the ability of national Governments and the European Union to generate resurgent economic growth and add to opportunities for employment.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Can I cheer up the Minister by assuring him that pro-EU, pro-reform Members on this side of the House warmly welcome his statement today? What would be the Government’s position in the event of an out vote? Members on these Benches remember the ‘90s, and we do not want to see this Prime Minister marching out into the rose garden and inviting the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) to put up or shut up. We want the Prime Minister to tell us where he stands; we do not want that lot dictating what happens in the event of an out vote.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind thoughts, but I always strive to continue to be cheerful in this job. The result of the referendum will be regarded by the Government as binding. This is a sovereign decision for the British people as a whole to take, and I am proud that it is my party and a Conservative Government that are finally giving the British people the right to take that decision.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
It has never been a matter of no immigration; we want controlled immigration. What evidence is there that reducing access to benefits will have any real effect on the number of people coming into this country?
Mr Lidington
A number of factors give rise to migration, but the fact that roughly 40% of people from elsewhere in the EU who live in the UK are in receipt of benefits or tax credits of some sort indicates that that is one of the major contributors to the pull factors.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
In his speech this morning the Prime Minister announced his intention to scrap Labour’s Human Rights Act. Is he opposed to the Act because it was a Labour Government who finally implemented it, or is he opposed to human rights on a more fundamental level?
Mr Lidington
I am sorry if the hon. Lady was shocked by that sentence in the Prime Minister’s speech, but it was in the Conservative party manifesto back in May. She is obviously entitled to defend the Blair Government’s Human Rights Act, but this country enjoyed a long tradition of respect for human rights well before that legislation was enacted, and I am confident that the United Kingdom will continue to have such a tradition when it has been replaced.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I will be proud to walk through the Division Lobby in support of the Government’s European Union Referendum Bill. Does my right hon. Friend think that most of the Opposition parties completely lack credibility, first, because they fought the right of the British people to have a say on our EU membership, and secondly because they now seem to be fighting the concept of reform?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is right. Some Opposition Members grossly underestimate the sense of resentment among many men and women in this country at having seen treaty after treaty go through, changing the balance of powers in Europe, with the British people never being asked to have their say.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is said that Christopher Columbus, when he set out, did not know where he was going; when he got there, he did not know where he was, and when he got back, he did not know where he had been. Is there not a serious danger of the Prime Minister facing exactly the same situation with his holographic negotiation strategy? Is the Minister not concerned that in personalising this, as he did in his statement, as the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, he creates a fundamental point of weakness in that we will have a Prime Minister’s referendum on a question that people view as somewhere between a figment and a fig leaf?
Mr Lidington
The entire Government were elected on a manifesto of renegotiation, reform and referendum. I enjoyed the joke, but Christopher Columbus is remembered for his achievement in navigation and discovery and for symbolising the opening of a new age. I hope that this renegotiation is the start of a new age of greater flexibility, democracy and competitiveness for Europe.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Some minutes ago I think I heard my right hon. Friend explain that the Bill of Rights would deal with our obligations under the charter of fundamental rights. Do the Government intend to legislate notwithstanding our obligations under the EU, or do they have some other plan, as yet unannounced, to deal with our voluntary subjection to the European Court of Justice?
Mr Lidington
In many cases involving trade and the single market, the European Court of Justice has produced judgments that have been very much to the advantage of British interests. It is true that if there is a single market, some kind of independent judicial arbiter is needed to settle disputes. My hon. Friend will need to contain his understandable impatience a little longer. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary intends in due course to announce details of the way forward on replacing the Bill of Rights and the implications of that policy.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the statement. The Minister has set out some very reasonable things to the House. May I assure him that there are many on the Opposition Benches who will work constructively with him and the Government to get the best for the UK and to face down some of the abuse that he has received from his own side on the statement today? There are people who would recklessly leave the EU, regardless of the cost to this country.
Mr Lidington
For five and a half years now I have had the pleasure of vigorous and sometimes robust discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as with Opposition Members. There are passionately and honourably held differences of view across the House in all parties about the United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe. I hope we can continue to take this debate forward in a spirit of mutual respect for people whose views may differ from our own.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The debate on whether the British people should vote to remain in or leave the EU has been characterised by some in terms of the certainty of remaining against the uncertainty of leaving, but does my right hon. Friend agree that with the current uncertain situation in Europe, particularly on the eurozone and the impact of the migrant crisis, voting to remain is as much a leap in the dark as voting to leave?
Mr Lidington
I advise my hon. Friend to wait until the conclusion of the negotiations, because we will then have much greater clarity over the nature of the choice that the British people will have to make.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the Financial Secretary promised to negotiate at EU level to achieve a zero rate of VAT on feminine hygiene products. He did not commit to a timetable, however, nor did he say that this would be placed alongside the Prime Minister’s other demands. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that women’s rights are not a second-class issue on this Government’s European agenda, by making those commitments today?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary made a very clear pledge to the House from this Dispatch Box, and the Government will pursue that.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Part 1 of the letter on economic governance states:
“There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union”—
those in the euro and those outside. Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the countries currently outside the euro other than ourselves are likely to remain in that position for many, many years to come, and that therefore it is in the wider interests of the whole EU that the European Union accepts that reality and enters into our negotiations on this point with an understanding of that fact?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. For as far ahead as I can see, some EU member states will be part of the single currency and a significant number, not only the United Kingdom, will be outside it. I believe that those in the eurozone will need to integrate their fiscal, economic and, to some extent, political arrangements more closely. The stability of the currency union is in the interests of the United Kingdom, even though we are not going to join it, so getting that relationship right between euro-ins and euro-outs is an important strategic challenge, and it is a central feature of our negotiation for that reason.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Minister’s statement understandably consisted largely of significant chunks quoted from the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk. One section that the Minister did not repeat, though, was the Prime Minister’s closing remarks, in which he said:
“I am ready to campaign with all my heart and soul to keep Britain inside a reformed European Union”.
Why did the Minister not include that? Is it because, instead of campaigning with his heart and soul with his own party leader, he intends to campaign with the leader of UKIP?
Mr Lidington
Despite the challenges ahead, I remain confident of a successful outcome to these negotiations and of joining enthusiastically with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in favour of continued British membership of a reformed European Union on the basis that my right hon. Friend set out in his speech this morning.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement to the House today. I am pleased to see that “rule nothing out” still features large in everything that is said and heard. What vexes me, and I am sure many right hon. and hon. Members, is the best way to achieve that deal and the aims that he has advanced today, which are both welcome and laudable—free trade, immigration and benefits control, sovereignty of Parliament, independent economic governance and the removal of ever closer union. Does he agree that the best way to achieve these aims is very simple—that is, to vote to leave?
Mr Speaker
Order. I let the hon. Gentleman blurt it out because I did not wish to stop him in mid-flow, but the question, which was more a list, suffered from the disadvantage of being too long, and it would be good to avoid that in future. I say that to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.
Mr Lidington
No, I agree rather with the Prime Minister when he said that we would get the best of both worlds by continued membership of a reformed European Union which provided us with amplified power for our own economic and security objectives for international work, but which was also a Europe more committed in the future than now to democratic accountability, to acceptance of its own diversity and to economic competitiveness.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Yesterday the Irish Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, was in Downing Street, where he spoke of his concerns about the impact that a UK exit would have on British-Irish relations. Does the Minister accept that those concerns are shared by many people in Britain? What do the Government propose to do to address them?
Mr Lidington
We have a very close relationship with Ireland and it is true that the reconciliation in Northern Ireland has in part been brought about in the context of the fact that the United Kingdom and Ireland have worked very closely together as partners within the European Union. We will certainly be listening to all our friends across Europe, as well as to the views of leaders in Northern Ireland, but at the end of the day this is a matter for the people of the United Kingdom to decide, just as the Irish people have voted many times on whether or not to accept new European Union treaties.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making the statement, and I commend him on the way he goes about making statements and engages with the House. I very much welcome the evolution of the themes and policies in the statement. My constituents will probably make up their mind based on two things—whether we can control our own borders, and the ability to trade widely with the world. With the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership bogged down in a politically correct quagmire in the European Union, what is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the ability of the European Union to conclude future free trade deals?
Mr Lidington
It is indeed complex and challenging sometimes to get an agreed negotiating position across 28 different countries and give the mandate to the Commission to negotiate collectively on our behalf, but the weight—the leverage—that derives from negotiating as a marketplace of 500 million people is very significant indeed. It makes other Governments, even of large countries, more willing to endure the political hassle that they themselves face with their own business interests in order to bring about free trade agreements which, I believe, are a win-win for both sides.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Given that the Government have repeatedly rejected the principle of a double majority in the referendum, will the Minister accept the result if England votes narrowly to leave, but is outvoted by the rest of the UK voting to stay in? More importantly, will his Back Benchers, who have barely asked a single supportive question, accept that result?
Mr Lidington
It is the United Kingdom that is the member state of the European Union. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party in May this year was against giving the people of Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom the chance to vote on their future in Europe.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I respect my right hon. Friend very much indeed, but does he seriously believe that Timmermans’ grudging enjoinder, “Europe where necessary, national where possible”, iterated in the Tusk letter and reiterated in his speech today, is a sufficiently ambitious lodestar for the UK’s negotiations?
Mr Lidington
It is one important and significant element in the negotiation, but it is not the whole story.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, which is an important step on the journey towards fundamental reform in the EU. Given the current unsustainable migration flows, does he agree that it is vital to ensure that visitors from the EU must first reside here and also contribute before they qualify for in-work benefits and social housing, and will he make this an urgent priority?
Mr Lidington
Indeed; that is exactly the objective that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out in his speech today.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in both our and the EU’s interests to trade more freely with the high-growth-potential Commonwealth economies, and that if the EU continues to move glacially on this issue, we should build more free trade agreements with the Commonwealth on our own?
Mr Lidington
The Commonwealth countries, important though they are, account for only 17% of global GDP, taken all together. I agree with my hon. Friend’s emphasis on the need to forge free trade agreements with emerging economies as well as with developed economies, but I caution against thinking that it would be quicker and easier to strike such a deal if the United Kingdom, with 65 million people, were negotiating rather than the European Union, with a 500 million-strong market.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
At this time of renegotiation, those who have their minds set on what they are going to do are almost irrelevant. However, will my right hon. Friend send a message to Europhiles like the political scientist Professor Hix, who gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee and felt that no matter what the renegotiations achieved, the dangers lie in those who believe that this country would vote to stay in if nothing is achieved? The default position at the moment, as I read the Prime Minister’s statement, is that if nothing changes we will opt to leave.
Mr Lidington
The Prime Minister is very clear that he believes that serious reforms are essential if the British people are to believe that their future lies in membership of the European Union.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
If we vote to leave the European Union, how long will a legally binding exit take—days, weeks, months or years?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend is understandably inviting me to speculate about a post-referendum outcome when the Government are focused on what happens during a referendum. I suggest that he might like to study article 50 of the treaty on European Union, particularly subsections (2) and (3), which will give him a lot more detail on the matter.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that it is in the Library if the hon. Gentleman is not fully conversant with it already. I expect that the Minister of State could reproduce it backwards in Sanskrit, and probably did so when he won “University Challenge”.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement and the fortitude he is showing in answering so many questions. Does he agree that the crisis in the eurozone means that the eurozone countries need to move together and agree a single fiscal policy for their single currency, but the key for our negotiations has to be that for the non-euro countries, Europe needs to do less and do it better?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend puts the point well and succinctly, and I agree with his comments.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
As hon. Members have said, the EU is very slow at concluding important free trade deals around the world, and that can harm our international competitiveness. Are the Government still committed to negotiating a means to fast-track important free trade deals in Europe?
Mr Lidington
We believe that Europe needs to take forward with much greater energy and determination the work in securing free trade deals with other countries and regions of the world. The trade strategy recently published by the Commission demonstrates a new and raised level of ambition that we very much welcome, but we want this agenda to be turbocharged.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that when we, as a sovereign Parliament, find ourselves in the position where we cannot even reduce the level of VAT on women’s sanitary products, the European Union has far too much power? Will he join me in criticising those who naively say that they would stay in Europe at any price, thereby undermining our renegotiations because without a walk-away position there can be no meaningful renegotiation?
Mr Lidington
The Government are clear that we need some very clear agreed reforms in order to make the recommendation to the British people that the Prime Minister said that he wishes to make, but also the British people will need to see serious reforms if they are to be persuaded to vote in favour of continued British membership. Beyond that, Europe as a whole would benefit from the sort of reforms that we are advocating because there are too many jobless young people in Europe who need greater European competitiveness, and in very many European countries we are seeing a sense of dissatisfaction and alienation from the way in which decisions are currently taken in Brussels.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly said at the beginning of his statement that we have a mandate to renegotiate thanks to our securing an outright Conservative victory at the general election. Does he agree that the reforms need to be permanent and irreversible as well as sufficient, because otherwise residents in my constituency and elsewhere will simply vote to leave?
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the referendum at the end of these negotiations must be final and that there can be no question of second chances or further renegotiation if people choose to leave the European Union?
Mr Lidington
Yes. The decision that the British people make will be binding. As the Prime Minister said, this is probably the most important vote for the future of this country that any of us who are of voting age will take part in during our lifetimes. The idea that one can then somehow go away and think again is at odds with reality and at odds, too, with the procedure spelled out in the treaties.
Mr Bone
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
May I thank the excellent Europe Minister for making this statement, and for his long tenure in office and the way in which he has managed to change position so many times? On occasion, I almost believe him. I thank the Prime Minister for his honesty today in coming forward with a renegotiation package that makes it clear that if the package is successful, we will still be in a political union and still have free movement. That allows Eurosceptics to say, “No longer do we have to pretend there’s going to be a substantial renegotiation—we can get on with campaigning to come out.” Will the Minister pass on my thanks to the Prime Minister?
Mr Lidington
I am always happy to pass on compliments from my hon. Friend. I have to confess that I would have been somewhat surprised had almost anything I said been enough to satisfy him, but I am sure we will continue to have these debates in future.
Speaker’s Statement
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I have received a report from the Tellers in the No Lobby about Division No. 112 on the Scotland Bill, which took place yesterday at 8.40 pm. They have informed me that the number of those voting No was erroneously reported as 269 instead of 289. The Ayes were 56 and the Noes were 289.
Bill Presented
Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Duty to Investigate) (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ann Coffey presented a Bill to amend the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that a person who dies while deprived of their liberty under Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 shall not be considered to have died while in custody or otherwise in state detention for the purposes of section 1 of the 2009 Act; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January, and to be printed (Bill 93).
Government Departments (Decentralisation Target)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a target for the relocation of central Government functions, offices and staff from London to other parts of the United Kingdom; to make provision for implementation, monitoring and performance reporting against such a target; and for connected purposes.
This Bill would ensure more balanced economic growth across the country; bring new jobs and greater prosperity to areas that have struggled to replace traditional industries they have lost; reduce pressure on the overheated London economy; and save billions of pounds to help reduce the deficit. These proposals should also be seen as a central part of the debate about devolution and improving public services, because they would improve policy making and reform the way in which public services are delivered by getting regional, local and central Government working more effectively together, bringing government closer to the people, and enabling civil servants to find out what life is like for people in Dudley and the rest of the country.
My proposals would move the vast majority of central Government civil servants and staff of non-departmental public bodies and quangos from London, transferring 100,000 jobs from the capital to the rest of the country. They would distribute wealth more fairly across the country and make a huge contribution to the regeneration of 50 city and town centres. They would benefit London by making more than 20 million square feet of central Government real estate available for the private sector, for new business start-ups in the capital, or for conversion to desperately needed homes for people in London. They would also benefit the taxpayer by saving an initial £10 billion and ongoing annual savings of £725 million.
We live in one of the most centralised countries in the world. According to the OECD, central Government control 72% of public expenditure here, compared with 35% in France and just 19% in Germany. Unlike in most other economies, only 2% of our taxation is raised at a local level. Government, finance, business, broadcasting, the media, culture and the arts are all concentrated here in London. As a result, investment and growth have been concentrated in the capital and stifled elsewhere. The economic outputs of seven out of eight of the UK’s largest cities consistently perform below the national average, whereas in Germany all eight of the largest cities outside Berlin outperform the national average. There is a similar picture in Sweden, Italy and France.
The historical north-south divide has been reinforced by the dominance of finance and the weakness of manufacturing, which has benefited the capital and hit the regions hard. Those factors have distorted Government policy for decades, exacerbated the decline of the UK’s traditional industries and hampered the regions’ abilities to attract new investment and new jobs to replace them.
Since the 1940s, there have been six attempts to decentralise Government Departments, most recently the Lyons review in 2004 and the Smith review in 2010. Hundreds of civil servants moved to Sheffield in 1979 to run the newly created Manpower Services Commission. The MSC, and then the Training Agency, brought many jobs to the city; David Fletcher, who led its inward investment team, said:
“The bulk of those jobs in some way shape or form are still here. Some jobs do come and go but it’s given us a platform to build for growth.”
Elsewhere, there were successful transfers to Bootle, Bristol, the north-west and the midlands, so there were some successes, but my proposal is much more radical.
The proportion of the country’s civil servants located in the capital actually increased every year between 2010 and 2015. There are now 79,000 civil servants and 63,000 staff of non-departmental public bodies based in London. Despite deep cuts elsewhere in the country, there are now 5,000 more civil servants in the capital than there were in 2013.
The capital’s civil service occupies almost 30 million square feet of space, which is equivalent to 57 London Gherkins. The average annual cost is £867 per square metre, which is more than twice the national average of £406. Worse still, newly created public bodies, such as the Government Digital Service, Health Education England and the Government Communication Service, have all been located in London and have not been joined up with the wider public sector.
When I was a Communities and Local Government Minister in the previous Labour Government, I am sure I had meetings with fewer than 30 of the 1,000 or so civil servants who worked at Bressenden Place. With email and videoconferencing, the rest could have been based anywhere else in Britain. Let us move all civil service posts that do not require regular face-to-face contact with Ministers, as well as all 24 of the newly created non-departmental bodies, all 43 regulators, inspectorates and ombudsmen, and all bodies with a localism or regeneration remit, such as HS2, Visit Britain or the Homes and Communities Agency. Between 7,500 and 10,000 civil servants would remain in London, with flexible working space and meeting rooms available when needed. It would even be possible for all Ministers from different Departments, their private offices and policy people to be in one building. Imagine what that could do for cross-departmental working and getting Ministers and Departments collaborating more closely.
Across the country, civil servants and local and regional government officers should share buildings and work together more effectively. Towns and cities could bid or submit proposals to host Departments, share services and save money. Would it not make sense to move the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the black country, this county’s manufacturing heartland; transport to Birmingham in the centre of the country; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to Manchester, which has the BBC, MediaCityUK, world-beating sports teams and brilliant facilities; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Norwich?
Ian Austin
Without forgetting, of course, Doncaster, Grimsby, Barrow, Hull and Chesterfield. Imagine how much easier it would be to improve skills and boost spending on science and technology in the midlands if central Government civil servants, local government officers, universities and industry were working closely together in the same place. Imagine how the quality of policy making would improve if central Government civil servants were based in the regions, seeing daily at first hand the problems they were trying to solve. That should also be seen as part of the devolution debate, which is taking place not just in Scotland and Wales, but in the regions of England. Local authorities, local enterprise partnerships, businesses and MPs in the west midlands are working hard to put together our combined authority bid to negotiate a devolution deal, but imagine how much more powerful the regions could be if central Government Departments were playing their full role.
According to analysis by the New Local Government Network, the traditional way of organising public services in rigid and independent central Government Departments, separate from their local government counterparts, is becoming less effective now that there is less money to spend, an ageing population and more complex needs to respond to, so we need to find new ways of working. For example, the national health service faces a £30 billion funding gap by 2020. Social care budgets have already been hit, and they face a £3 billion funding gap by 2020. The centrally managed Work programme is failing to get sustainable jobs for nearly 70% of people who go through it, but we still face serious skills shortages in specific sectors and many parts of the country.
The answer is to empower local people, based on a sophisticated understanding of the local community’s needs, local expertise, and collaboration between central and local government departments and the health service on meeting those needs. That is clearly a much more intelligent way to solve problems that overlap traditional and rigid Whitehall silos such as health and employment. Devolution and decentralisation would put local people in charge and remove layers of bureaucratic rules and prescriptions, so that we can develop a form of government in which flexibility, innovation and adaptation to people’s needs become the norm, not the exception.
Finally, that would also help address the huge problem of disengagement with and distrust of London and Westminster institutions. It makes a massive difference when people can see decisions being made locally to meet their needs; it cuts through the cynicism that many people feel towards politics. My experience as Minister with responsibility for the west midlands taught me that when we listen to local people, when funds are devolved, and when central Government, local authorities, business and universities work together and are empowered to implement the answers, decisions are taken more quickly and the solutions are more effective.
Birmingham’s brilliant new train station complex is one of the biggest city centre redevelopment programmes in the country. The runway extension in the midlands got built much more quickly than airport development projects elsewhere in the country. We also have the new Jaguar Land Rover plant. All those huge redevelopment and regeneration projects would never have got off the drawing board without Government Departments letting local authorities, the private sector and others in the west midlands exercise their leadership and use their expertise to transform the region. Those projects show what the regions are capable of doing. Imagine what more they could do to transform the country, if central Government Departments were decentralised and their functions devolved.
Let us transform the way government works, and thereby transform the country, so that as we emerge from the recession and as our economy grows again, we do not make the mistakes of the past or leave any community behind. Let us build a stronger economy right across the country, with better skills, new industries and new jobs, and open up opportunities for people in all parts of Britain.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ian Austin, Alison McGovern, Mr Nicholas Brown, Mr Adrian Bailey, Andrew Gwynne, Caroline Flint, Chris Evans, Mr Iain Wright, Diana Johnson, John Mann, Liam Byrne and Helen Jones present the Bill.
Ian Austin accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January, and to be printed (Bill 94).
Trade Union Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to ballot thresholds for industrial action; amendments to clauses 2 and 3; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to information requirements in relation to industrial action; amendments to clauses 4 to 6; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to electronic and workplace balloting; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the timing and duration of industrial action; amendments to clauses 7 and 8. | Two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to picketing; amendments to clause 9; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. | 6.00 pm on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced. |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I do not want to detain the House and I will not seek to divide it on this matter, but it is important to put on the record that we sought more time for the remaining stages of the Trade Union Bill, and that time has been further truncated by a lengthy statement on Europe. Suffice it to say that if the Government continue to use programme motions in this way, and insert statements to truncate debate on very controversial matters, it will only serve to weaken this place and its ability to scrutinise legislation, and to strengthen the other place, which I am sure will be very keen to scrutinise further the Bill when it arrives there after today’s proceedings.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), we sought additional time. This is a highly controversial Bill, with much media interest, and there were 50 Divisions —on all the clauses—in the Public Bill Committee. Every clause was up for debate, and the timetable for today does not allow the whole House to give every clause the same scrutiny. Ideally, we would want more protected time to discuss all such Bills, and to be able to debate all the clauses in this Bill.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
Just briefly, because I want us to use this time for the purpose for which it was intended, let me say that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) knows full well that, when it comes to his own contributions, what matters is quality, not quantity. He did not have the advantage of joining us on the Public Bill Committee, but he was no doubt informed by the Opposition representative on the Committee that it finished early. We did not use the full amount of time allocated under the programme order in Committee. I believe that the Bill has received proper scrutiny.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Opposition are protesting somewhat too much. When I looked at the amendments tabled for today, I was absolutely amazed by the lack of amendments on very important parts of the Bill, which may have been discussed in Committee—[Interruption.] Opposition Members say they did not have the time; they had the time to table amendments but did not do so, and today we will not debate very significant parts of the Bill that I think should be debated.
Question put and agreed to.
Trade Union Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 271 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 15, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas or responsibility.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 17, in clause 4, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 18, clause 5, page 3, line 31, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 19, in clause 6, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 20, in clause 7, page 4, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 21, in clause 8, page 4, line 29, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 7, in clause 12, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(13) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the publication requirements in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 22, page 9, line 26, at end insert—
“(13) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 8, in clause 13, page 11, line 4, at end insert—
“(14) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to reserve powers in relation to facility time would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 14, page 11, line 4, at end insert—
“(14) The provisions in this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 9, in clause 14, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) None of the provisions of this section shall apply to services the provision of which is devolved wholly or partially to the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, Mayor of London or local authorities in England.”
The amendment would ensure that the provisions with regard to the prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector would not apply to services devolved to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London or local authorities in England.
Amendment 34, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
“(3) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 31, in clause 15, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
“(4) The provisions in this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 32, in clause 16, page 13, line 33, at end insert—
“(5) The provisions of this section shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
Amendment 33, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(5) The provisions of this section and the Schedules it inserts shall only apply with the consent of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government, Northern Ireland Executive, the Mayor of London and Local Authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.”
New clause 2—Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means—
“(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) In this section—
(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
New clause 5—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action—
“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote by electronic means for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
(2) In this section “electronic means” means such electronic means, including means of secure voting electronically in the workplace, as is, or are determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(3) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (2), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(4) For the purpose of subsections (2) and (3), a means of electronic voting satisfies “the required standard” for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(5) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf.
(6) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (5)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (5)(b).
(7) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
The new Clause would permit electronic voting in ballots for industrial action.
New clause 6—Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots—
“(1) The provisions in New Clause5 [Voting by electronic means in trade union ballots for industrial action] apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
(2) The electronic means adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) must also be capable of allowing union members to vote in ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
The new Clause would permit electronic voting in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
New clause 7—Secure workplace ballots for industrial action—
“(1) Trade union members shall be permitted to vote in person at their place of work by means of a secure workplace ballot for the purposes of Part V of the 1992 Act (Industrial Action) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3.
(2) In this section “secure workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. These may, but are not required to, include electronic means and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union to ensure that the required standard is satisfied, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(3) For the purpose of subsection (2), a workplace ballot satisfies “the required standard” if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) those entitled to vote can do so in privacy;
(c) votes cast are secret; and
(d) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(4) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (1)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(5) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in section 226 of the 1992 Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (4)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (4)(b).
(6) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”
The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots for industrial action. These can involve electronic or non-electronic means.
New clause 8—Secure workplace balloting and voting for trade union elections and other matters—
“(1) The provisions in New Clause 7 [Secure workplace ballots for industrial action] shall apply to ballots and elections for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer) of the 1992 Act.
(2) The arrangements adopted for the purposes of subsection (1) shall allow union members to vote in workplace ballots for the purposes of Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamating or transfer) of the 1992 Act.”
The new Clause would permit secure workplace ballots in union elections and ballots other than those for industrial action.
New clause 9—Methods of voting in ballots for industrial action, trade union elections and other matters—
“(1) Voting in a ballot or election carried out to meet the requirements of the 1992 Act as amended can be carried out by postal ballot, electronic means, secure workplace ballot or a combination of these methods.
(2) The combination of methods is to be determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the 1992 Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot.”
New clause 10—Application of provisions to public sector employees across the UK—
The extent and provisions of this Bill shall only apply to the public sector in the UK,
(a) By consent of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England in their areas of responsibility.
(b) Where consent has been granted, this consent can be withdrawn at any time.”
Chris Stephens
I rise to speak to amendments 15 to 22, 14, 34 and 31 to 33 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, as well as to new clause 10, with which I will begin my remarks.
Before I do so, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who led for the Labour party in the Public Bill Committee with great diligence. I welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to his place. I also pay tribute to the Conservative members of the Committee, who tried to defend the indefensible. I pay tribute to Labour members of the Committee, the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). However, the star of the show—she made the soundbite of the Public Bill Committee—was my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): she commented that the Minister had presented the Bill with great moderation but was entirely disingenuous.
New clause 10 is a catch-all amendment that limits the extent and provisions of the Bill from applying to the public sector across the UK without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Mayor of London and other public bodies and local authorities in England. We took the view that, to protect our approach of working in partnership with unions, Scotland should be excluded from the entire Bill. However, having heard representations from other political parties, and indeed many from across the trade union and labour movement, we now want to restrict the extent of the Bill from applying without the consent of each devolved institution or authority which will be impacted by the changes.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I think it is arrogant of the Government to impose the changes on local authorities. We have had three negotiations on the check-off system.
Chris Stephens
Like many others in this place, the hon. Gentleman is a former council or local authority leader. He will know that he would have negotiated with the trade unions on issues such as facility time to make sure agreements were made in time and grievances were heard in time to avoid such issues going to a tribunal. I agree with him that it is arrogant and out of order for the UK Government to make decisions—for example, in respect of facility time and check-off—that are opposed by many local authorities across the UK.
The proposals in the Bill have the potential to undermine the effective engagement of trade unions across Scottish workplaces, and indeed across the UK, particularly in the public sector. The Scottish Government response to the “Working Together Review” and the fair work convention have shown a commitment to building a stronger, more collaborative approach to the relationship between trade unions, employees and employers. The combination of the provisions in the Bill will affect employees’ right to strike, will change the relationship between unions and organisations negatively and will lead to greater confusion among employees. That will undoubtedly hit Scottish business, especially across the public services in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK.
As with many Bills in this House, the devil is reserved in the detail, and with a lot of the detail to be set out in regulations, we are unaware of what else may be coming down the line. Moreover, there will be no formal opportunity for the Scottish Government, or indeed any other authority, to influence such regulations, even though they will have a direct impact on them.
According to the evidence of witnesses, there is concern that the Bill could lead to a constitutional crisis if the devolved Administrations refuse to implement the content of the Bill. The Bill potentially cuts across devolved areas and could lead to confusion and a conflict of interests in its application to existing and new contracts, owing to the ongoing local government reforms in other areas. During the evidence sessions, Dave Prentis, the general secretary of Unison, commented that the new combined authorities in England will have a lot of extensions of powers, except the power to determine check-off and facility time arrangements.
The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, stated in the “Programme for Government 2015/16”:
“my government will vigorously oppose the UK government’s proposed trade union legislation, which seeks to undermine the rights of unions to fairly and reasonably represent their members.”
Carwyn Jones, the Welsh First Minister, echoed those concerns when he wrote to the Prime Minister expressing concerns about the Bill in September 2015, stating that it should be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
The Scottish Government maintain positive and stable industrial relations in Scotland. Those relations are underpinned by the long-standing strategic partnership between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which was recently reaffirmed in the memorandum of understanding signed in May 2015. The memorandum pledged the Scottish Government to work with the STUC in opposing Tory austerity and in demanding further powers for Scotland. The Scottish Government view trade unions as key social partners, playing an important role in sustaining effective democracy in society, particularly in the workplace, and the existence of good employment practices is a key contributor to economic competitiveness and social justice.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has described the Scottish Government’s relationship with the unions. In Committee, did the Government provide evidence of any public body having expressed a view that was different from that of the Scottish Government?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that no evidence was presented in Committee from a public body in support of the Bill. We heard from the Tory Taliban, the TaxPayers Alliance, which was supportive of some of the measures, but no public body was.
The restriction of the extent of the Bill would ensure that none of its provisions applied without the consent of the relevant authorities. We have tabled amendments to restrict the application of some of the provisions.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman explain to constituents of mine in Hertsmere, many of them hard-working commuters who will welcome the protection against unjustified strikes, why London should have a veto over these measures when they would not have a say under his proposals?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman refers to unjustified strikes. I am not aware of any unjustified strike. The notion seems to be presented by the Conservative party that low turnouts are due to lack of support. I do not think that that is the case. The case that the Government have advanced suggests that after the ballot result, trade union officials and stewards in the workplace develop mystical powers of persuasion—almost Jedi-like powers of persuasion—and with one wave of the hand can say, “This is the strike you are looking for.” That is nonsense. What was interesting in Committee, which the hon. Gentleman might want to take note of, is that passenger transport groups were very concerned about aspects of the Bill such as the provision on untrained agency workers in the transport sector.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Conservative party was interested in having more people voting in strike ballots, it would allow electronic voting, as it did for the election of its candidate for Mayor of London, and secure workplace balloting?
Chris Stephens
I will come on to that point. I found it curious in Committee that we were advised that e-balloting was unsafe and unsecure.
Amendment 15 would restrict the application of the provisions in clause 2 that introduce a 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots in addition to the current requirement for a majority vote in favour of action. The Government’s proposals will undermine constructive employment relations throughout the United Kingdom. Effective negotiations between unions and employers rely on equal bargaining power. The ability of unions to organise lawful industrial action ensures that employers take the views of the workforce seriously and engage in genuine negotiations.
The statutory thresholds will make it difficult for unions to organise industrial action, especially in larger workplaces and those with more dispersed workforces. As a result, the legislation is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on the ability of trade union members to take industrial action in defence of their jobs, working conditions and livelihoods.
It is in the employers’ and employees’ interests for disputes to be resolved quickly and amicably. The Government’s proposals mean that disputes are more likely to become protracted. The introduction of ballot thresholds will mean that unions will take more time in the run-up to ballots to ensure that there is the necessary turnout. That will inevitably divert time and effort from finding an amicable settlement.
Mr Jim Cunningham
This is one of those Bills that the Tories always bring forward when they are in trouble. More importantly, a lot of it has been brought forward because the Mayor of London has not been able to handle the industrial situation. As a result, the Tories are bringing in the Bill to undermine good industrial relations in this country.
Chris Stephens
I am very sympathetic to that point of view. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Mayor of London seems to have a different attitude from other public sector bodies across the UK.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Did not the evidence that was given to the Committee say that the Bill would not solve London’s problem because in most of the disputes that have taken place in recent years, particularly in rail, the action would have gone ahead in any case?
Chris Stephens
The reason it would have gone ahead in any case is that the thresholds the Government are trying to introduce would have been met.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the Conservative Mayor of London has not met the unions in the transport sector in London at all during his tenure? Would not a better method be to have proper industrial relations with negotiations and dialogue rather than sabre-rattling?
Chris Stephens
I agree. There will be an opportunity for the electorate in London to pass judgment on that at the appropriate time next year.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking successive interventions. I was not a member of the Bill Committee. He is talking about the application of higher thresholds for industrial action. What consideration was given in Committee to the potential for wildcat union action as a consequence of the higher thresholds, because trade union leaders might be unwilling to take a vote for fear of not meeting the threshold?
Chris Stephens
No evidence was presented that that would be the case. What was raised was the impact that the thresholds would have on women workers in progressing disputes about issues that impact on them more than on male workers, such as the introduction of shift changes. The Bill Committee did not touch on the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the number of days lost to industrial action per year has fallen dramatically over the past 30 years. Since 2010, an average of 647,000 days have been lost to industrial action each year, compared with 7,213,000 days per year in the 1980s. In 2014, there were only 155 stoppages as a result of industrial action, with 55% taking place in the private sector and 45% in the public sector. Most industrial action is short-lived: in 2014, 64% of all stoppages lasted for only one or two days, with 93% of the workers taking part in the industrial action.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would like the answer to a question. If the amendments that would allow the Scottish Government to give their consent were accepted, would you drop your—[Interruption.] Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. In those circumstances, would the SNP drop the other amendments as it would have a say in its own Parliament?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Collective bargaining!
Chris Stephens
Collective bargaining, indeed.
It is important that public bodies across the United Kingdom have a say and give their consent as to whether provisions in the Bill should be passed. I also believe that if a public body gives its consent, it should be possible for that consent to be taken away on a future occasion. The Mayor of London, to use an example that was given earlier, is perhaps the best example of that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It was good that my hon. Friend noted the difference in strike rates in lost days over the past 30 years. Does he agree that industrial relations have improved over the past 30 years and that unions are much more effective and co-operative, but that the Tories over there are stuck in an ideological argument of 30 years ago? They should move forward instead of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Chris Stephens
I agree with that. Seasoned veterans of the House will know what I mean when I say that this is Keith Joseph, phase 3. This is an ideological attack on the largest group in civic society that stands up against exploitation.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee and the hon. Gentleman was a wily performer. He talks about Keith Joseph and says that we are not in the real world. I remind him that we heard evidence right at the beginning of our consideration from the chief executive of Arriva buses, who said that on a vote of 17% of the staff of his firm, 50% of all buses in London were stopped. Think of the disruption that that caused for real people out there in the real world.
Chris Stephens
The key issue was not the number of people who were balloted, but the number of fellow workers who then came out to support them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was other evidence of employee intimidation and blacklisting, and the Government need to answer that point later in our debate.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Does evidence from the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Nursing not contrast spectacularly with that of a Government witness from Health 2020 who admitted when giving evidence that she did not even know what facility time was?
Chris Stephens
That is correct. I had never heard of Health 2020, and under the skilful questioning of the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) it was revealed that the witness was a former Conservative candidate. When she mentioned her concerns about patient care, I said that a trade union is obliged to provide life and limb cover, but the witness had not heard of that either; and as the hon. Lady mentioned, she did not know what facility time was.
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I am trying to develop a theme with my questions about the Committee. I asked about thresholds and what consideration the Government gave to wildcat action. Will the hon. Gentleman speak about the restrictions on facility time and what the Government say about the potential for wildcat action if there is less time for trade unions to deal with workplace disputes?
Chris Stephens
Wildcat action was not discussed in Committee. We discussed the social media provisions that could lead—as the hon. Member for Gateshead pointed out—to wildcat tweeting, but there was no discussion about wildcat action in that sense.
Mr Anderson
The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. He mentioned the work of the Royal College of Nursing. Its employer, University College Hospital, said that:
“elements of the Bill that would confine trade unions’ ability to engage with us are widely viewed by NHS employers as potentially undermining of the Government’s health policy”.
The Government want to introduce measures that will undermine health policy. To go back to Keith Joseph, he always argued that we should let managers manage. Managers want to manage in conjunction with trade unions, and the Government should butt out.
Chris Stephens
That is absolutely true. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who was president of a trade union.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that trade unionists are real people, and that it is not only trade unionists who object to the Bill? The Government have significantly failed to secure any substantial employer support for these proposals, and many public and private sector employees object vociferously to the Bill and see it as completely unnecessary.
Chris Stephens
The last time I looked in the mirror, yes, I am a real person, like many other trade unionists in this country.
I am pleased that Labour amendments seek to restrict the application of provisions relating to facility time and check-off, and they will get our support. Once again, alongside the principled and substantive arguments that will no doubt be presented, it will come out that there is no mandate across the public sector for the Bill.
Mr MacNeil
Is it not strange that a Tory party that always talks to us about regulation and red tape is today introducing more regulation and more red tape, and “choking the arteries of commerce”, as was once said in a famous TV programme in Scotland? We are looking at Tory dinosaur behaviour that goes back to the 1970s.
Chris Stephens
I think it is perhaps worse than that because such behaviour comes from a political party which has a laissez-faire attitude to the economy until it comes to the trade union movement. It goes from laissez-faire to Stalinism with no intervening periods whatsoever.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is not a prime example of the unnecessary bureaucracy and complication of the Bill the arbitrary powers that are given to the certification officer for monitoring picketing? That is guaranteed to find failings and create fines.
Chris Stephens
It is even worse and goes even wider than that. Trade unions will be expected to make a contribution to the certification officer, but they will not be allowed to contribute to check-off, because that is to be banned across the board in the public sector.
New clause 2 would ensure that employers have a duty to ensure that union members can vote without fear of interference or constraint. That same duty is imposed on unions, and it is about what happens when an employer fails to comply with those duties by intercepting voting papers or emails relating to the ballot.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my feelings of irony that the Government have stated that trade union members will not be allowed to vote in an electronic ballot, yet they considered that to be perfectly legitimate for the London mayoral selection?
Chris Stephens
I agree with the hon. Lady, and that point was raised in Committee. We were told by Conservative Members that e-balloting is unsafe and insecure—I do not know what that means for the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. It came out that a trade union could email an employer and the police about picketing. Presumably that is safe and secure.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Will the hon. Gentleman say something about stewards having to register with the police and wear armbands just as they did in the 1930s in the occupied territories in Europe?
Chris Stephens
We will discuss that at a later stage. The hon. Gentleman’s point is about the increased capacity for blacklisting that is contained in the Bill, and I agree with him.
Chris Stephens
May I move on and make some progress? I apologise, and I will take further interventions later.
New clause 2 would modernise the law promoting democracy and inclusion—the word “modernisation” keeps getting used by the Conservatives in support of the Bill. Currently, all ballots and elections must be conducted on a fully postal basis. Unlike major companies and other membership organisations—including political parties—trade union members are not allowed to vote online. The Government have consistently described the Bill as an attempt to “modernise” trade unions, but to date they have not allowed trade unions to modernise into the 21st century by using electronic and workplace balloting.
The Government argue that the introduction of thresholds for strike action balloting would boost democracy, but that only stifles the possibility of workers’ voices being heard. If the Government were committed to boosting workplace democracy, they would allow secure workplace balloting and balloting by electronic means, as our amendment suggests.
Online balloting is more accessible and inclusive. Today, most people use electronic devices every day to make transactions and to communicate. We in the SNP use online ballots, and as we have heard, so did the Conservatives in the election of their mayoral candidate. Ballot papers are usually sent to members’ home addresses, which can lead to lower turnouts, especially when junk mail is flying through people’s doors on a regular basis and things can easily get dumped in the bin. Modern methods of voting are more efficient and help negotiations to move faster. Using only postal ballots could prolong the length of a dispute because they simply take longer.
According to the latest Ofcom figures, 83% of people now have access to broadband and 66% of households own a smartphone. Those figures are likely to be higher among those of working age, and they are set to rise rapidly. The 2014 Electoral Commission survey involved 1,205 adults aged over 18, and found that 42% of respondents felt that online voting would increase their confidence by “a lot” or “a little” in the way that elections are run.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the run-up to Christmas, people will be engaging electronically by purchasing goods and materials across the piece? I do not hear Conservative Members saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with that process, or saying, “We’re not going to have you doing that.” Is this not ridiculous? It is just a ruse to say, “We don’t want people to engage with trade unions.” That is what it is about.
Chris Stephens
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is because Conservative Members fear the inevitable visit of three ghosts on Christmas eve.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with Electoral Reform Services, which has run more than 2,000 ballots, that there has not been a single security breach in all those ballots and that, therefore, it is a very secure mechanism?
Chris Stephens
I agree, and that evidence came out in Committee.
Workplace balloting is an available secure option that increases democracy in the workplace. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots, under schedule Al. Workplace ballots of that nature are secure and overseen by qualified independent persons, usually Electoral Reform Services. The individuals and balloting agencies permitted to act in statutory recognition ballots are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots.
An analysis of Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout tends to be significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace. Average turnout was 88%, and in combination ballots average turnout was 86.9%. The average turnout in postal-only ballots was 71.6 %. According to the TUC, there is no evidence that workers feel intimidated into voting a particular way when ballots take place in the workplace. Of the complaints that the CAC was asked to decide on, five were made by unions and one by an employer. None of the complaints was upheld.
We are told that electronic voting is not safe. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manages more than 2,000 annually, and its report concludes that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. It says:
“There are risks associated with electronic voting but these are essentially similar to the risks associated with any secure electronic process. Many of the risks are also of the same nature as the risks related to postal voting”.
Chris Stephens
I do, and one of the increasing problems with postal balloting is the number of post boxes, which has fallen by 17% in Scotland in the last year.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill risks throwing away much of the positive industrial relations that have been established by trade unions, work that they do day in and day out? One problem is that the media like conflict, but the bread and butter tasks of the trade unions include spotting and defusing issues before they become problems. Merseyside Fire Brigades Union told me that its employers described its union reps as their best but lowest paid managers, such is their contribution to positive industrial relations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we risk losing all that?
Chris Stephens
I agree with the hon. Lady. Without question, the Bill is ideological. Under a veneer of moderation, it is an ideological attack on a large section of society that stands up against exploitation.
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the Bill is ideological. Is it ideological for people who send their children to schools in my constituency who cannot get childcare during an unjustified strike with a very low turnout in a ballot? Is it ideological for hard-pressed commuters in my constituency who cannot get to work because of strikes called on ballots with low turnouts?
Chris Stephens
The problem with that analysis is that it is based on ignorance. The simple fact is that if a ballot has a low turnout, a trade union has to make a calculation. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is a former Unison president, can confirm that trade unions have, on occasion, not proceeded to industrial action if they do not have support for it. The biggest gamble that a trade union takes when it decides to take industrial action is how many people participate. If people do not participate, the industrial action falls and dies.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The contribution from the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) highlights the lack of understanding of the role of trade unions and of people who are working just to pay their bills. That lack of understanding shows why this Bill is so wrong.
Chris Stephens
It also shows complete ignorance of the principle of solidarity. Many of the people who are affected by industrial action, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) described, will be fellow trade union members.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the average time lost to strike action last year was less than a third of a second per member of the workforce?
Chris Stephens
Yes, and that evidence also came out in Committee. What is the great industrial chaos in this country that means that the Government need to intervene? There is none—
Chris Stephens
For entertainment purposes, I will take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Oliver Dowden
I shall try to entertain the hon. Gentleman. If he believes that turnout is so high for all these industrial actions, why is he so concerned about having a threshold that requires four out of 10 trade unionists to turn out and vote? If turnouts are high, where is the problem?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
What was your vote? You wouldn’t have been elected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. No shouting out. If Members want to intervene, they should stand up and do so.
Chris Stephens
I will give the hon. Member for Hertsmere the benefit of my trade union experience. In localised disputes about local issues, turnouts go through the roof, in my experience. Lower turnouts usually happen in national, UK-wide disputes. Those issues can lead to low turnouts, but the key test is how well the trade union is organised. Turnout will be a lot higher in some areas than in others in such disputes.
Joan Ryan
The point about commuters was made earlier, although the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) may not have been listening. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) said, the transport strikes that are often prayed in aid of the Bill would have all crossed the threshold and were all legitimate strikes.
Julie Elliott
If the genuine motivation behind the Bill was to get turnout as high as possible, would not the Government put forward every possible means to allow members of trade unions to vote in ballots, including workplace balloting and e-balloting? In fact, they are doing the opposite.
Chris Stephens
I agree, and that is why we have tabled the new clause. If the Government were so concerned about participation, they would allow e-balloting and secure workplace balloting. If secure workplace balloting is good enough for recognition agreements, surely it is good enough for many of the other issues that trade union members have to decide on.
We were told in Committee that we cannot have online voting until 2020. Ministers have claimed that the Speaker’s Commission on digital democracy concluded that online voting could not be achieved before 2020, but it was concerned only with online voting in general or local elections, not trade union or any other ballots. The Commission reported on evidence from the Open Rights Group, which argues that online balloting in the context of a general election is far less transparent than ballot box voting. These arguments do not apply to trade union ballots, which are counted by the scrutineer in private.
Paula Sherriff
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in taking interventions. Does he agree that trade unions prevent a significant amount of sickness absence in the workplace? I was a shop steward in a hospital for a number of years. By fostering good relationships between trade union members and management, I am confident we reduced significantly that burden on the workplace.
Chris Stephens
Yes, with my trade union experience I do agree with that. I would happily say that the best education I had was from the trade union movement, particularly, for example, when someone had a condition that came under the scope of the Equality Acts. I agree with every word that has been said.
Alan Brown
As has been said, my hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. He will agree that very important points have been made about the double whammy on thresholds and not allowing online or secure workplace voting. Without being flippant, does he think the Government have assessed the risk of secure workplace balloting when it comes to English votes for English laws? There might actually be a risk of SNP Members voting on English laws after all, because the balloting might not be secure enough.
Chris Stephens
Indeed. I look forward to that test when the experiment, as I think Mr Speaker described it, takes place.
The Open Rights Group is also concerned that online voting in general elections does not justify the extra expense of developing new systems while the technology is in its infancy, as turnout is already comparatively high. This argument does not apply to trade union ballots, where postal balloting is more expensive and deters turnout. Unlike general election voting, the technology already exists and has been well used for over a decade by private companies, political parties and membership associations.
John Howell
The hon. Gentleman and I have shared many an anecdote about this, both in Committee and elsewhere. He will recall that in Committee I raised a number of concerns from the Open Rights Group which called for prudence in the use of internet voting. Has he looked at that in greater detail?
Chris Stephens
The hon. Gentleman is right. I found it curious that when I googled my name I got a link to his website and it was the exchange that we had in Committee. In fairness, the same thing happens with the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens). The Open Rights Group is saying that trade union ballots do not apply in these cases, because there is the additional safety of a scrutineer and so on.
We are told that trade union ballots should be subject to tighter regulation than elections for officeholders in private businesses or non-governmental organisations. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They should also rerun the election for the Mayor of London using a postal-only ballot.
Labour’s amendments on balloting are in a similar vein. They can be broadly supported, as their intentions mirror that of our amendment. We are asking Members to vote for our catch-all amendments to make this draconian, Dickensian Bill a little bit better.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 9. In overall terms and despite the heat coming out of the Bill, I think we can all agree that we have moved a very long way in industrial relations and strike laws towards consensus and away from the polarisation we saw in the early 1980s.
The Trade Union Act 1984 requirement for compulsory industrial action ballots to be put in place for there to be statutory immunity was a very significant step, although it did cement the rather odd situation whereby there is, technically, no right to strike. Rather, we give unions in certain circumstances statutory immunity for the tort—civil wrong—of inducing a breach of the employment contract. That being as it may, I think we can all agree that voting before a strike is vital, and that the vote itself should be carried out in a free and fair manner that reduces, so far as possible, any chance of coercion, threat or intimidation to the voter. It is certainly the case that the Bill addresses ballots insofar as voter turnout requirements and how the questions are put, but it does not address the question of how the ballot itself is physically conducted. This is now being put to the test by the Opposition in their amendments. New clause 7 argues for secure workplace ballots and new clause 5 suggests implementing electronic voting in ballots for strike action.
My first observation is that those two concepts do not necessarily sit very well together. Namely, if the Opposition believe that e-voting is the future and the way to go, why are they proposing returning votes to the place of work? The problem is actually more profound, of course. The security of a postal vote sent to a person’s home does remove a large area of risk in terms of intimidation that could attach to returning votes to the workplace. The benefits of the 1984 ballots and the use of post were hard won. They have been of great benefit to working people; not perhaps to the union organiser or the militant activist, but to the everyday working man and woman who has benefited from being able to reflect calmly on the merits of a strike ballot in the safety of their own home.
Jo Stevens
The hon. Gentleman refers to intimidation when people cast their ballot. Does he have any real examples of intimidation in ballots?
Mr Djanogly
I am not here to accuse anyone. If the hon. Lady thinks that the 1984 legislation was introduced because there were no instances of intimidation at that time, we need to go back to the history books. I do not intend to do that today. I am not saying that postal ballots will always be free from intimidation, particularly if several members of the same family work in the same place. I appreciate that new clause 7 requires that votes at the workplace are private and free from unfairness, but the question is how far does that go? Does it cover only the voting room or the factory premises? What about beyond the factory gates and the pickets? I am concerned that this could be a retrograde step.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman talks about intimidation in the workplace. He is a lawyer. Let us have some evidence to back that up, rather than just putting it out there and casting aspersions. Get on and give us some evidence.
Mr Djanogly
As I said before, we are looking at the optimum way of voting. The Opposition’s new clause 9 provides for the possibility of a combination of voting methods to be used, but I note that the combination is to be selected by the union. Unless I have read it wrong —someone might want to put me right—this could imply that workplace-only ballots could, in effect, be reintroduced via the back door. Again, I would see that as a step backwards that should not be supported.
On electronic voting, it could be said that this is where society is heading, a point made very strongly by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and that union law should take the lead on something that will be generally adopted. I have not seen the most recent opinions of the Electoral Commission on e-voting, but I recall that it had serious concerns about its security a few years ago. Will the Minister please advise the House to what extent he has discussed this with the Electoral Commission, and whether he has reviewed the role of the certification officer with that of the Electoral Commission in the conduct of ballots? In that regard, if in the future we wished to move towards electronic voting generally, could this be effective for unions under existing legislation, such as the provisions in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004? In other words, are the e-voting amendments required at all?
If only because of the technological changes, this has been a useful debate. However, I am not yet convinced, in terms of security, that the proposals are the correct way to go at the current time.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians Union and Unite, and I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This group contains our new clauses 5 to 9 and amendments 7 to 9. It is good to return to the Bill after a jam-packed Committee stage, as it is clear from reading the proceedings that the Government did not provide sufficient time. The Minister said earlier that the proceedings finished early, but neglected to tell the House that they had run late the night before because the Government were afraid there was not enough time to conclude proceedings. He missed that bit out.
Dawn Butler
This oppressive Bill will particularly affect women, as three quarters of trade union members are women. The Government talk about aggression, but the only aggression is coming from them and their attack on the rights of working people.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I well remember as a young boy how my mother’s trade union helped her when she got a hernia from lifting tables as a dinner lady. Without its help, she would never have got the support she needed, and might even have lost her job. That experience of what trade unions actually do is something that Government Members often do not understand.
James Cartlidge
Talking about women, who do we seriously think is most affected when schools close because of ballots with low support? In Committee, we heard about the effect of school closures in 2011 on millions of parents. In most cases, those strikes had the support of well under 40%.
Kevin Brennan
I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman wants higher turnouts in ballots and so will be supporting our new clauses and amendments allowing for workplace balloting and e-balloting.
Paula Sherriff
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of the Bill is that it is being applied retrospectively? Five million long-standing union members will have their political fund subscriptions cancelled without their permission or that of their union. It is no wonder the Government want to scrap the Human Rights Act.
Kevin Brennan
I will not test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by straying from the amendments, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the retrospective elements are particularly pernicious. Governments should refrain from retrospective legislation. I cannot believe, either, that the time periods were recommended by officials. When I was a Minister in the Department, any time period for consultation on a major change to a system involving business was always at least 18 months, so I am shocked if officials have advised Ministers that two months is sufficient.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The Government have often used the rhetoric of fairness in trying to conceal their savage attack on workers’ rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposals to replace striking staff with agency staff are draconian? This measure was banned almost 10 years before I was born.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she will have a chance to develop her point further when we debate that very matter.
Joan Ryan
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) talked about people voting in the safety of their own homes. Will my hon. Friend comment on that? It was a slur on trade unions and employers, because it implied that electronic or workplace voting was not secure and that unions and employers bullied people. That is not my experience of how unions conduct themselves and their ballots.
Kevin Brennan
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, workplace ballots take place all the time, as other hon. Members have pointed out, and have to be independently scrutinised and verified as fulfilling all the statutory requirements for fairness. So it is absolute nonsense to imply that there is anything unsafe about it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I agree that this is a terrible attack on trade unions and their rights, but we also have not yet heard any evidence of a serious problem, which proves again that the Bill is a straightforward attack on the trade union movement.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right. This is just what Tory Governments do, regardless of the evidence. They have not presented any evidence. I have read through the Committee proceedings and looked at the evidence given, but there is no evidence to support the changes in the Bill. It is a knee-jerk instinct, and that is greatly to be regretted.
We tabled many amendments in Committee, but, rather surprisingly, the Government did not accept any of them, despite the cogency of my hon. Friends’ arguments and their excellent drafting. We have therefore had to submit further new clauses. In answer to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), I have to say he has been in the House a long time and is very experienced. He knows that Report is not a repeat of Committee and that, given the extremely truncated time limit, it is necessary to focus on a small number of items. That makes no difference to the fact that in Committee we made clear our fundamental disagreement with the Bill in almost every respect.
Mr Djanogly
The hon. Gentleman says he does not have enough time, but how could he come to this place today having not tabled amendments on, for instance, trade union funding or the vote percentages? Everyone, including all the union members who have written to Members, has been talking about these things, yet there is not a single amendment dealing with any of them.
Kevin Brennan
There were many amendments in Committee, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find there is not enough time to discuss those amendments that have been tabled, let alone additional items. However, if he wants to lobby his Ministers and Whips for more time so that we can put down more amendments, I would welcome that.
New clauses 5 would permit electronic voting in trade union ballots for industrial action, and new clause 6 would permit trade unions to use electronic voting in all other statutory elections and ballots, including elections of general secretaries and political fund ballots. Throughout the Committee stage, the Government sought to dress up the Bill as some kind of modernisation, but their continued refusal to introduce e-balloting alongside secure workplace balloting clearly demonstrated they were not serious about modernisation. Online balloting can be as safe and secure as any other form of balloting, and is already used for a variety of purposes in the public and private sectors, including at J. P. Morgan Asset Management, Lloyd’s of London, Chevron and, of course, the Conservative party itself, which recently selected its London mayoral candidate by e-balloting.
If Ministers’ reason for resisting e-balloting in the Bill seriously was fraud and concern about what the Speaker’s commission said about voting in parliamentary elections, why would they employ the very same method in their own party elections? We all know that the real fraud is the fraudulent argument of Ministers. In reality, they want to discourage turnout and make the thresholds harder to reach. That is rule 1 from the Tory party political playbook: disfranchise those who might disagree with it.
Ruth Smeeth
Does my hon. Friend agree that there has not been a single case of fraud in online or workplace balloting, and that of the seven cases of bullying, harassment and other fraud taken to appeal, not one was upheld?
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right, and she probably also knows that most of those complaints about the conduct of ballots were made by trade unions themselves. I was going to make that point later, but perhaps there is no need to now.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has noted that none of the reasonable amendments put forward by Labour and other Members have been accepted. What does he make of the fact that combined authorities throughout England have stood in opposition to the fundamentals of this Bill, while the First Minister in Wales, Carwyn Jones stood up in the Assembly in Cardiff today and said he would oppose it? This shows that there is no respect and no attempt to find any consensus whatever.
Kevin Brennan
So much for the respect agenda, as my hon. Friend rightly points out.
Dawn Butler
Does my hon. Friend agree that those outside this place will look in bemusement at the argument that sitting in front of a PC and voting electronically will not be safe?
Kevin Brennan
Precisely, and I shall develop that a little further in a few moments. Under our proposals, electronic or workplace ballots would be overseen by an independent scrutineer, and before the ballots are run, that scrutineer would confirm that the proposed method met the required standard, that all members entitled to vote had the opportunity to do so and that votes were cast in secret with the risk of any unfairness or malpractice minimised. That is the same standard as set out in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. None of that, however, matters to Ministers.
Julie Elliott
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as he said in Committee, the provisions in this Bill fly in the face of every other bit of legislation that this Government have brought forward, whether it be using online means to apply for benefits, filling in tax forms or anything else? It is entirely at odds with everything else this Government are doing.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is right, and for some reason, that does not seem to matter to Ministers—
Kevin Brennan
I had not quite finished the sentence, but I will give way to my parliamentary neighbour.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend who is doing an excellent job as shadow Minister. He will know that I am transmogrified in my position, but it is a delight to be here speaking on this Bill again. Is not the greatest irony the fact that one of the architects of this Bill, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, stands up at the Dispatch Box at Cabinet Office questions extolling the virtues of the Government Digital Service and the digitalisation of online services in lots of highly secure and complex matters? That same Minister is one of the architects of this Bill, which does not allow e-balloting.
Kevin Brennan
One is not allowed to use the word “hypocrisy” in this House, so “irony” was the correct word for my hon. Friend to use.
As I was saying, none of this seems to matter to Ministers. Our new clauses also require unions to use postal ballots alongside electronic and workplace voting, where necessary, to ensure that everyone has a chance to vote and that members who may be absent from work due to sick leave or maternity, paternity or adoption leave will be able to vote. None of that matters to Ministers either. Our new clause allows unions to provide members with a choice of voting methods, including postal and electronic voting, and employers would be under a duty to ensure that union members can vote free from interference or constraints. The use of faster and more efficient balloting methods could also assist in the earlier resolution of disputes as ballots and subsequent negotiations would take place more quickly. But you’ve guessed it—none of this matters to Ministers.
I am sure that this Minister is going to trot out his line that he is not against e-balloting in principle, but that the Speaker’s Commission provided evidence of concerns about safety. However, the Open Rights Group’s evidence was based on comparison between general election voting in polling stations and online voting; it made no comment on the safety and security of wider forms of online voting. In any case, the commission’s report concluded that e-balloting should be available for all electors by 2020. The Minister could easily have allowed for the option for regulations to be laid within this legislation, which would permit e-balloting to commence when any concerns he had were satisfied.
There is no genuine reason whatever why trade unions should be the only organisations in the UK that are required by legislation to use postal-only ballots for elections and ballots. If the Government were genuinely concerned about levels of electronically based elections in the private sector, they would legislate for all bodies to be required to use postal-only ballots. They will not, because they are not genuinely concerned. Thousands of private sector, voluntary and political organisations use electronic voting every year. Electoral Reform Services alone manage over 2,000 secure online ballots annually, and a recent report concluded that online voting is no less secure than postal balloting. In any case, union elections and ballots are more tightly regulated than voting systems used by other organisations, meaning even less chance of a problem.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. He says there is no reason, but if we look back to when the legislation was introduced in the 1980s, we see that there was a reason. People were told then that ballots of this nature would deliver the turnouts, but why is this being pushed? It is a huge cost on the trade unions, so even if a union got the answer it wanted in a ballot, it would have cost a fortune to run that ballot, undermining the union’s capacity to work.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is clearly one of the Government’s motivations behind these amendments.
Workplace ballots should be permitted for statutory union elections and ballots. The 1992 Act already permits workplace ballots to be used for statutory recognition ballots. Workplace ballots of this nature are secure and are overseen by the qualified independent persons, who are generally the same as those who act as scrutineers in industrial action ballots and other statutory union elections and ballots. Well over 200 ballots for statutory recognition have been held, a quarter of which involve a combination ballot, including both workplace ballots and postal ballots for those absent from work when the ballot is taking place. An analysis of a Central Arbitration Committee reports indicates that turnout was significantly higher in ballots where all workers voted in the workplace, with an 88% average turnout, compared with 71% in postal ballots. There is no evidence that workers felt pressurised by this. In fact, people were less likely to vote for union recognition in workplace ballots than in postal ballots. As was pointed out, the Central Arbitration Committee has received only a handful of complaints, most of which were made by the unions, rather than individuals.
New clause 9 would allow trade unions to decide what balloting to use—balloting by electronic means, workplace ballots, postal ballots or any combination of those. Given the severe time constraints, which we have already discussed, it is not possible for us to divide this afternoon on all our new clauses on e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, but I want to place clearly on record our view that the Government’s failure to accept our very reasonable modernisation proposals, which would enhance trade union democracy, invites detailed further scrutiny of these issues in the other place. E-balloting and secure workplace ballots are distinct issues in their own right, but we recognise that, owing to the Government’s timetabling, we are unable to vote on all our new clauses and amendments separately on Report without curtailing debate on other important issues in the Bill.
Our amendment 7 should be read in tandem with amendments 8 and 9, all of which relate to this Bill’s undermining of the devolution settlement and conflict with the Government’s own professed localism agenda. Our amendments are designed to ensure that the provisions do not apply to services that are either wholly or partly devolved to the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, English local authorities and the Mayor of London.
Chris Stephens
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) managed to ascertain from the UK Government that a UK Government Minister would decide the facility time for health workers in Scotland and Wales. Does the shadow Minister think that is fair?
Kevin Brennan
I am coming on in a few moments to talk about the so-called respect agenda, and I hope that I will then answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Our amendments would ensure that devolved Administrations could decide how best to engage with their staff and trade unions when delivering devolved public services, rather than being subject to a highly partisan central diktat—I believe this what the hon. Gentleman was referring to—from a Government in possession of no mandate in many parts of the UK.
I can recall the Prime Minister travelling to Wales when he was first elected, and declaring that when it came to Wales and the other devolved Administrations, he would govern on the basis of respect. He called that his “respect agenda”. With that promise in mind, the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, wrote to the Prime Minister expressing his concerns about the Trade Union Bill and its complete lack of respect for the role of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales. He pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, ruled that depending on a UK Government Bill’s impact on devolved services, it could be subject to a legislative consent motion, even if it could also be classified as relating to matters that were otherwise reserved. Our Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale, wrote today to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, calling for a legislative consent motion; she has also called for Scottish local authorities, regardless of political persuasion, to refuse to implement changes when there is no consent.
I want to make it clear that our commitment to solidarity for all workers means that Labour opposes the Bill on behalf of workers and trade unions throughout the United Kingdom. We believe that simply devolving employment and industrial relations—for example, to Scotland—would play into the Conservative Government’s hands, and would result in a race to the bottom on workplace rights and privatisation, which could only have a detrimental impact on workers throughout the UK.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Welsh Government will present a legislative consent motion in relation to Wales? I can assure him that he will have the support of Plaid Cymru if they do.
Kevin Brennan
I think that I would be equally guilty of arrogance were I to assume the role of devolved Ministers in the Welsh Government. However, the letter from the First Minister clearly indicated that a legislative consent motion was under consideration.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister for Public Services, Leighton Andrews, made it clear in his oral evidence to the Select Committee that he, too, was considering the matter. He also said today that the Bill, unamended, was
“an all-out assault on the devolution settlement”.
Kevin Brennan
I am always slightly nervous when I give way to my hon. Friend, because his expertise on all these matters is so thorough. He is absolutely right.
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me again. Is he aware that the Bill is opposed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, whose human resources spokesperson is none other than a Conservative councillor by the name of Billy Hendry?
Kevin Brennan
If that is the case, it does not surprise me, although it might surprise some Members. I should have thought most Conservatives would believe that arrangements entered into voluntarily, at a local level, between an employer and employees should not be interfered with by central Government. I should have thought that that was in the DNA of Conservative principles. Surely Conservatives believe that voluntary arrangements and transactions between parties that are entered into freely, and are not immoral or criminal, should not be tinkered with by central Government. That is what is extraordinary about some of the provisions in the Bill, which illustrate the blinkered nature of the Government’s views on trade unions and their role in our society.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Taken in conjunction with the Government’s wish to pull out of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the cuts in legal aid, the Bill constitutes a direct attack not only on the trade union movement, but on the general public in general terms.
Kevin Brennan
I am sure that many of those human rights implications will be examined further in the other place, although the unfortunate time constraints prevent us from doing so here. No doubt many of those in the other place will consider the Bill with a great deal of interest.
Under current legislation, trade union workplace representatives have a right to reasonable paid time off to perform duties, which has huge benefits for employees and employers alike. Clause 13 could allow the Government to set a cap on the percentage of the employer’s pay bill that could be invested in facility time. It would also give the Government power to impose an arbitrary limit on the amount of time that union officials could spend not just negotiating improved pay and conditions, but training, promoting learning opportunities for the workforce, accompanying people to grievance and disciplinary proceedings, and carrying out health and safety duties.
Furthermore, as was pointed out in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, the clause establishes a democratic deficit. First, Ministers will be able to use secondary legislation to restrict or repeal trade union rights, so this place will have no opportunity to amend that legislation. Secondly, the clause will prevent democratically elected devolved Administrations from deciding how to manage their employment relations in their workplaces, and how to engage with their own staff. Thirdly, it will enable the Government to pick and choose politically which local authorities it will force to impose a cap. That is an extremely dangerous precedent.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “reserved powers” elements of the Bill show that the Government intend to use that opportunity?
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Lady is absolutely right; I do not think that those provisions would be in the Bill if the Government did not intend to use them. Parliament should not grant the Government those reserved powers on any assumption other than the assumption that they intend to use them. Conservative Members should think very carefully about what they are granting in this Bill.
There are significant questions to be asked about the legal basis of such a change in relation to European Union law on health and safety representatives, on the rights of trade union representatives to facility time during consultations on collective redundancies, on outsourcing, and on rights protected by the European convention on human rights and the International Labour Organisation conventions. Moreover, according to research commissioned in 2007 by the Department of Trade and Industry—now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—workplaces with facility arrangements have lower voluntary exit rates, which leads to significant savings in recruitment costs.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the cuts in facility time, along with the employment tribunal charges, will deter women from pursuing cases of maternity discrimination? The number of those cases is apparently rising, but women have not been receiving justice recently.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is quite right. Other Members have also drawn attention to the degree to which the Bill discriminates against women in the workplace.
Jo Stevens
Is my hon. Friend aware of any other cases in which the Government have retrospectively interfered in private agreements between consenting parties in order to undo them?
Kevin Brennan
My research may have been inadequate, but I have not come across any such examples. However, the Minister must have dozens. Surely he would not single out one particular group in society for this draconian treatment unless he were meting out such treatment to other organisations as well.
Lucy Frazer
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when an employer and an employee enter into a contract, it is agreed between them that the employee will turn up for work and will not engage with others to disrupt the employment—[Interruption.] May I finish? The unions’ power to engage in collective activity is an exception to that principle—an exception that must be exercised only in circumstances in which it is justifiable and legitimate.
Kevin Brennan
I understand the basis on which, under our law, it has, for more than 100 years, been possible to undertake industrial action lawfully. The hon. and learned Lady may well know that it was a judgment in the part of the world that I represent—along with my hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and for Cardiff Central—that, more than 100 years ago, led to the requirement for changes to ensure that, as in any civilised democratic society, working people had the right to withdraw their labour if they were involved in a trade dispute. I hope the hon. and learned Lady is not suggesting in any way, shape or form that there should not be that right. As I said earlier, if she was serious about wanting more people to be involved in decisions around trade disputes—in balloting and so on—she would support our new clauses and amendments, which allow for workplace balloting and e-balloting, and easier access to democracy for the people she purports to speak about.
Rachael Maskell
Does my hon. Friend agree that having facility time improves industrial relations in the workplace and therefore lessens industrial action?
Kevin Brennan
I agree; there is plenty of evidence that it saves money and facilitates good industrial relations. It is draconian and illiberal of the Government to interfere in voluntary agreements between employers and employees by means of central diktat in this way, and as regards their reputation, I believe that they will live to regret that.
Chris Stephens
Surely the biggest impact on individual contracts will be where it is written into employees’ contracts that they can have their trade union subscription deducted from their salary. The cost of that to other public sector employers will be considerable, as they will have to issue new contracts.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman must be a mind-reader; I am coming on to that shortly.
Kevin Brennan
I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose expertise it will be interesting to hear.
Mr Wright
Following on from the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), does the shadow Minister agree that the hallmarks of a good, productive, innovative economy are collaborative, harmonious industrial relations? The likes of Airbus with Unite, and Community throughout the beleaguered steel industry, will help to make sure that we can stay competitive. Trade unions are good for not just individual workers but for a modern, productive economy.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, and they would be part of an industrial strategy if this Government believed in one, but instead, the Government are basically walking across the street to pick a fight where no provocation exists.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Brennan
Let me make a bit more progress, because I want other colleagues to have an opportunity to participate in this section of the debate.
Negotiations between employers and unions can play a very positive role in workplaces. The Welsh Government realised the value of such benefits, and based relations with trade unions on a partnership approach. As Carwyn Jones said in his letter,
“it cannot be right for the UK Government—blind to policy priorities and devolved service delivery reforms in Wales—to specify how much union ‘facility time’ devolved public sector employers should allow. Nor am I convinced that the intention to end ‘check off’ arrangements for trade union subscriptions in the public sector is necessary or appropriate. The Welsh Government operates these arrangements as part of its approach to effective social partnership and is not seeking to change this.”
Despite this, the Tory Government plough on. This is not the agenda of respect. This is an attitude of contempt towards devolved Administrations. Since I have referred to “check off”, I will now move on to amendment 9—
Kevin Brennan
But prior to moving on, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
Joan Ryan
I rise to offer my hon. Friend support. Some 60 local councils and NHS organisations agree with the point he is making on behalf of Carwyn Jones. The leader of Enfield Council has said:
“It would seem rather farcical to expect a Council to develop efficient organisational structures, internal employee consultation and negotiation systems, and deliver million pound services to the public but deny its right to set the level of facility time appropriate to meeting these objectives.”
Kevin Brennan
The leader of the council has put it succinctly and appropriately.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I have been both a shop steward and the leader of a council, so I have seen this from both sides. Let me explode the myth: most good employers in big companies will say that facility time saves them money; they do not want hundreds of their employees disrupting the foreman when he is organising production. It is apparent that those on the Conservative Benches do not have any experience of industrial relations or employment practices.
Kevin Brennan
If it was felt there had been abuse in some areas, that could be dealt with, but to legislate to outlaw something of this kind is shocking. Yet that is, in effect, what the Government are doing.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The point is that under the law, a human resources director of a large company would still have to consult individuals. Through collective consultation, a lot of agreements can be made very quickly; the union can communicate with its members very quickly and negotiate with an HR director. With this legislation, an HR director will have to go round to every single employee. We are talking about the NHS, and councils that have several thousand employees. That will cost vast amounts of money, take vast amounts of time and leave the Government and those employees in a really peculiar situation in which they could be taken to judicial review.
Kevin Brennan
As ever, my hon. Friend brings his vast experience of these matters to bear in the debate.
Our amendment 9 would ensure that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to services that were wholly or partly devolved. In Committee, the Government introduced a new clause—it is now clause 14 of the Bill—to prevent all public sector employers from deducting union subscriptions via the payroll. The proposed ban is clearly designed to target union finances and to make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. Under the clause, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector.
The Government claim that that will save the taxpayer £6 million, but many unions already cover the cost of check-off services. There is a real risk that if the ban on check-off services comes into effect, the Government— and therefore the taxpayer—will actually incur costs, potentially including legal costs arising from the need to compensate trade union members for the loss of their contractual right to have their union subscription deducted at source.
The proposed ban on check-off arrangements has been introduced without consultation with employers, without engagement with the unions and without any proper assessment of its impact on employment relations. It was not in the Conservative party’s manifesto or in the Queen’s Speech, and there was no reference to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the impact assessments that accompanied the Bill. I note the concern that has been expressed by Conservative Members on this matter in amendments that we will consider later today.
Kirsten Oswald
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when many organisations already make provision for payroll deductions for credit unions, charitable giving, cycle schemes and for many other purposes, it is an absolute farce for the Government to suggest that it places a burden on such organisations to make deductions for trade union subscriptions?
Kevin Brennan
I have to disagree with the hon. Lady: it is a tragedy rather than a farce that the Government are doing this. I understand the point that she makes.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend has already punched holes in the figure of £6 million and the calculations that underpin it. Does he agree that if the Government are to have any credibility, they should also publish an estimate of the extra costs that the taxpayer will be landed with as a result of the increasing unrest and decreasing co-operation that these ridiculous arrangements might engender in the public sector workforce?
Kevin Brennan
I do indeed. My hon. Friend represents an area that has many trade union members, and he is absolutely right. It is shocking that the Government have not published those figures. I hope that the Minister has deep pockets, because he might well have to dip into them when he finds out how much this policy is going to cost.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Some councils actually make money from check-off arrangements. One or two examples have been given to me of councils not only repaying the costs of check-off but getting extra funding that supports council services.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is right. As I have said, he has put his finger on the matter in his amendment, which we will discuss later. His intervention now has drawn to my attention the point that the state should not be interfering in this kind of voluntary transaction, which is entered into freely by all the parties concerned and which is neither illegal nor immoral. What is wrong with an employer in the private or public sectors voluntarily agreeing to help to collect trade union subscriptions, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with its employees, in exchange for an administrative payment? In what other field would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction of this kind? The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on spotting that flaw, and the basic illiberalism, at the heart of this measure in the Bill.
Chris Stephens
I, too, disagree slightly with the shadow Minister: I do not think this is a tragedy; I think it is sinister. In a collective bargaining unit that had a staff association alongside a trade union, it would be permissible for the staff association subs, but not the trade union subs, to be collected from people’s salaries. Is that not biased?
Kevin Brennan
I am not going to escalate our dispute as to whether this is a farce, a tragedy or simply sinister, but the hon. Gentleman is right.
Tom Blenkinsop
In Committee, we raised this issue about other things that can be collected centrally by an HR department or the payroll. For example, some members of staff may be chartered accountants or nurses who pay for their qualifications on an annual basis through their payroll, and that would not be affected but their trade union membership of course would be.
Kevin Brennan
It is entirely appropriate from time to time for payroll to be used in this way. Often, members pay into a credit union through their payroll. These things should be encouraged; they are very good for industrial relations.
This ban was not included in the Conservative manifesto or the Queen’s Speech, and no reference was made to it in any of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultations or the Department’s impact assessment. As we have heard, there have been concerns among Government Members about this move as well. It is almost universally opposed, except by the TaxPayers Alliance, known colloquially as the tax-dodgers alliance, which gave evidence during the oral evidence stage.
In pressing ahead, the Government have failed to secure substantial employer support for their proposals, with many employers, particularly in local government and the health sector, having expressed concern that they could undermine positive industrial relations, which are vital for the delivery of quality public services. Is it any wonder that that is the case, given that employers and trade unions were not consulted? We believe these provisions are unnecessary and draconian, and I give notice that we may wish to press amendment 9 to a vote later—for some strange parliamentary reason, it does not come at this knife.
Rachael Maskell
Does my hon. Friend agree that this further complicates the situation in the health environment when people pay not only a levy for the industrial support of a trade union, but a professional levy that goes towards the professional support they have with their work?
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend highlights the lack of thought, consultation and proper scrutiny that has gone into this proposal. It is unravelling by the minute as hon. Members bring their expertise to bear on the implications that it has out there in the real world.
Let me draw attention to some of the other amendments in this group. The Scottish National party has tabled a raft of amendments, some of which were moved in Committee. I understand that the SNP may wish to divide the House on new clause 2, which is in the spirit of our new clauses 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Given the time available, if the SNP does that, we will support it in lieu of our new clauses—the same applies in respect of new clause 10. At this point, I should allow somebody else an opportunity.
Lucy Frazer
Trade unions play an important role in protecting the rights of employees: through their collective power, they have the ability to balance the scales against an employer, who invariably has greater economic and social power than the employees in its workforce. Last week, I met a few trade union officials from my constituency, and was struck by the passion and desire they have to do their job in representing others. But therein lies the crux of this legislation: it is a union’s job to represent its workforce, so its actions must represent their wishes. It is important that when a union has the power to bring a school, hospital or factory to a temporary standstill, its actions actually reflect the will of its members. I say that for three reasons.
Lucy Frazer
I ask the hon. Lady to let me develop my argument a little further. First, those who suffer most in a strike are not the employees or employers but the public. The employees do not suffer, because any loss of income from the strike may well be covered by the union. The employers of the large concern do not suffer, because they will be paid their salary in any event. It is the public, and only the public, who suffer, first as the consumer and later, when the bill comes in, as the taxpayer. The public end up picking up the tab for both sides.
In the winter of discontent, the main victims of the low pay offensive in the public service were the old, the sick, the bereaved, children and the poor. It is not only this Government who have made the point that it is right that action by a trade union should reflect the mood of its members. The need for democratic accountability by the union was also recognised by the Labour Government. Their White Paper in 1998 entitled “Fairness at Work” specifically drew attention to the need for accountability:
“Laws on picketing, on ballots before industrial action and for increasing democratic accountability in trade unions have all helped to improve employment relations. They will stay.”
It is for that reason that it is right that these measures, which are right as a matter of principle, should apply to the whole of the UK .
Tom Blenkinsop
That legislation was brought in during Baroness Thatcher’s period of Government. Is the hon. and learned Lady saying that she was wrong, incorrect or flawed in any way for bringing in that legislation?
Lucy Frazer
The legislation that we have at any time must reflect the position of the country at the time. This is the place in which we find ourselves, and this is the Bill that is right for the moment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Frazer
I will not give way, as I wish to press on.
I was not a member of the Bill Committee, but I have read some of the submissions on this issue from the unions. The Fire Brigades Union said that it had met the thresholds in its recent ballots. Such unions, which are already ensuring an effective turnout, need not be concerned about this proposed legislation. Furthermore, they do not need to be concerned about the provisions as they currently stand, unamended in the Bill. Indeed, where it is right that action should be taken—it is clear that this method of negotiation is needed—they should be confident that their members will make every effort to vote for it.
These measures are meant to ensure that, where there is not such support, the interests of the public are protected and weighed into the balance. In one intervention in this debate, it was suggested that the thresholds have been met in transport. In fact, the bus drivers strike earlier this year took place at the behest of a turnout of 21%, inconveniencing all the workers who were attempting to get to work. Transport for London reported that there were 6.5 million passengers in London who needed to make alternative arrangements.
James Cartlidge
I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree that those people will be among the most vulnerable and lowest paid in the city who rely entirely on that transport system.
Lucy Frazer
That is absolutely right. When there are strikes, the people who suffer are the low paid workers who have to get alternative childcare, whose hospital appointments are affected and who cannot get to work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Frazer
I will not give way, as I want to continue.
Although it may be possible to increase methods of voting, we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in place. New clause 5 suggests that electronic means should be provided as is determined by the unions. In an area potentially rife with practical concerns, we need to be sure that there will be no issue with the amendments before they are allowed. If the unions have the power to bring major industries to a standstill, they need to exercise that power responsibly and democratically. It is essential that any ballot is seen to be conducted fairly and transparently. If there is any risk, or perceived flaw in the ballot, the legitimacy of the ballot may be in question. The vote that is taken by the union members—
Lucy Frazer
I am about to finish.
The vote taken by the union will not garner public support and public trust that the representation of the unions demands, and it is for that reason that we should pass clauses 2 and 3 without amendment at this stage.
Ian Lavery
This is a Bill that nobody has asked for and that nobody wants. Even the latest polls in the national press show that the general public are opposed to this union-bashing Bill—this gagging Bill part two. It was the deputy chairman of the Conservative party who said it was about time that we stopped bashing the trade unions. Let us be completely clear on this issue. It is undoubtedly a ferocious, full-frontal attack on the 6 million-plus members of the trade union movement. I take exception to some comments that have been made, not by everybody on the Government Benches but certainly by a number who seem to want to distinguish between trade union members and ordinary people. The trade union members that I know and mix with are more than ordinary people; they are absolutely fantastic individuals who go the extra mile to try to help colleagues at every opportunity.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
A good friend of mine, a local community activist in my constituency, is very proud of her roots. Her mum is Evelyn Allard, one of the Dagenham women who took industrial action in pursuit of equal pay. Does my hon. Friend agree that under this Bill the employer might have prevented such an action from even starting, let alone succeeding, and the Bill will therefore have a particular impact on women?
Ian Lavery
There is no doubt about that. I fully concur with my hon. Friend about the impact this will have on women in particular. Whether we like it or not, the Bill will have a disproportionately negative impact on women in the workplace.
Getting back to these ordinary people, trade union members are taxpayers. They want their children to get to school in the morning, to counter the argument made by a number of Members on the Government Benches. Do people think that trade union members do not have children?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of this debate is very similar to that on working tax credits? How do Conservative Members think they can make the case for working people if they are going to be ideologically driven on the subject of working people? It does not make sense.
Ian Lavery
I fully agree and hope to develop that point.
This is the gagging Bill, part 2. It is about disarming any dissent, particularly in the public sector. When we look at the thresholds, the ballot provisions, the measures on agency workers and all the new clauses and amendments, we begin to see the big picture. The Bill is about criminalising working people and eradicating any resistance, particularly in the public sector and particularly with regard to women. Why are the Government bashing low-paid people in the public sector, imposing pay restraints on them and coming up with crazy ideas about stripping tax credits from hard-working, low-paid people? They do not want to give those people the right to fight back. That is what the Bill is about. It is about eradicating that dissent while the Conservative Government keep their foot firmly on the necks of the low paid who are struggling even to make ends meet.
Mr Anderson
My hon. Friend is right about the way that people are being treated at work, but the other disgraceful thing about the Bill is that it is a clear attempt to break the relationship between the trade union movement and this party. It is about undermining this party, which represents the people he is talking about, so it is not only the trade unions that will be affected but every man and woman in this country. If this party is less strong, the Conservatives will continue to discriminate against working people.
Ian Lavery
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the Bill’s provisions on opting in to, rather than out of, the political fund. There has for many years been a gentlemen’s agreement that political funding should be decided on a cross-party basis. Many Conservative Members would agree that this is not the type of Bill into which they should insert a clause which would so greatly restrict the finances of an opposing party that it would struggle to fight a general election. As well as tackling the issue of dissent, the Bill is an attempt to ensure that the Opposition do not even have the finances to fight. It is about the Conservatives believing that they have the right to rule—not govern, but rule, and that is quite different.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I cannot help reflecting on the comments of the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who said that legislation should be appropriate to the time. We are in a time when industrial action in this country is at an all-time low. What problem to do with industrial action is the Bill trying to sort out?
Ian Lavery
We are in a time when more than a million people, most of them in work, are claiming family tax credits, and more than a million people who are in work and have families need to use food banks. I mentioned gagging and eradicating dissent. The Bill is about keeping people quiet.
James Cartlidge
The hon. Gentleman has slightly widened the debate, with tax credits and so on. He talks about us putting our foot on the neck of the poor. Does he think we are doing that by delivering the record lowest number of workless households that this country has ever seen?
Ian Lavery
That comment would give me the opportunity, if the Deputy Speaker were to allow it, to diversify my contribution. The Conservative Government have increased to record levels zero-hour contracts, lower-paid work and the number of apprentices, but before Mr Deputy Speaker chastises me, I will move on from that immediately because it is nothing to do with the Bill.
Lucy Frazer
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 788,000 days were lost last year in strike action, at a time when every party in this House says that productivity is key?
Ian Lavery
If that is the figure, so be it, but in every case industrial action would have been taken through the legal process and as a last resort by individuals who need to take strike action to make their voice heard. We have the most restrictive anti-trade union legislation in the western world, and to take a day’s action or any other type of action, workers have to go through all the hoops set out in legislation.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) commented on statistics and days and hours lost. My hon. Friend will recall from Committee that the hours lost in the provision of transport in London were for reasons other than industrial action. The overwhelming majority of time lost is due to breakdowns, signal failure, overcrowding, leaves on the line and so on. Industrial action has accounted for barely 2% or 3% in most of the past 10 years. Is that not the fact that we are dealing with today?
Ian Lavery
I fully accept that. If we want to talk about productivity, we need to look at that, instead of trying to highlight something that is not really a problem.
Rachael Maskell
Days have been lost through industrial action because the negotiators, whether that is the Mayor of London or the Secretary of State for Health, refused to come to the negotiating table, refused to talk to the trade unions, and have been spoiling for a strike, as we are seeing now over the junior doctors contract. Surely the Bill should be about improved industrial relations which give a voice to working people, as opposed to crushing that voice.
Ian Lavery
I entirely agree. As I said earlier, does anybody want this Bill? Has anybody asked for it? Even some of the major Tory party donors have said it is purely union-bashing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, and he was absolutely right, that is what Tories do. [Interruption.]
Tom Blenkinsop
The Minister just said that the Tories voted for it at the last election. You did not declare that as a policy prior to the last election. You also did not declare the NHS Act or the changes to the tax credits. If you are so proud of this planned legislation, why did you not declare it before the general election?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. First of all, I am not responsible. I want to clear that up. [Interruption.] No, “you” refers to me. Mr Blenkinsop, you were wrong: it is not me. It may be those on the Government Benches, but you said “you”. Secondly, we need to speak about the amendment. I have allowed some latitude, Mr Lavery, because you have been tempted away, and I know that you want to get back to where you were.
Ian Lavery
That is absolutely correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the reason my hon. Friend spoke in the way he did is that Government Front Benchers were having a separate conversation and not listening to a single word he was saying. That is not unusual.
This Bill is simply here to do three things: to restrict the right to organise, to restrict the right to collective bargaining, and to restrict the right to strike action. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, but I listened to many of the arguments in the evidence sessions, which were quite enlightening. I think the Minister himself would say that the Government found it extremely difficult to get anybody who had a clue what the Bill was about to speak for them at the evidence sessions. One of their witnesses, the chief executive of 2020Health, spoke about facility time. Facility time is a huge issue in this Bill, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said. He asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene to dictate on facility time in Scotland and Wales. I would ask whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene in facility time in any workplace anywhere in the UK. The answer, quite simply, is that it is not right: they should keep out of the workplace with regard to the likes of facility time.
Tom Blenkinsop
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) pointed out that that self-same witness had no idea what life and limb cover was, nor did she know that it has been in existence since at least the early ’80s, if not the late ’70s, as a TUC agreement with the emergency services to make sure that there was always cover in the event of an emergency. The fact that witnesses called by the Government had no idea about long-term existing legislation shows how poor this Bill is and how poor the Minister’s work on it has been.
Ian Lavery
This individual, who runs a private health organisation the length and breadth of the UK, was asked if she had read the Bill. She said, “Not really.” She was then asked, “Have you read most of the Bill?” “Not really.” “Do you understand what facility time is?” “Not really. What is facility time?” She did not even understand life and limb cover, which is integral to trade union law, whereby if there is a problem that is a life and limb issue, trade union representatives will break off industrial action to ensure that people are safe. And, let me say, she was the best witness we had.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of facility time is beneficial to the good running of any public authority or business, and that eroding it will cause immense difficulties in terms of productivity if union representation cannot be provided for union members in the workplace?
Ian Lavery
Absolutely. Many, many papers have been presented by professors, doctors and other experts with regard to facility time. There have been many battles on industrial relations problems over many, many years—decades and decades—resulting in a decent industrial relations policy that allows for facility time. Facility time could involve, for example, discussions on health and safety, avoidance of industrial disputes or avoidance of the progression of court cases. It is not about people sitting in an office on the telephone organising disputes—quite the opposite; it is about trying to avoid these disputes.
Catherine West
When I was a council leader employing thousands of staff, facility time was given to cope with all the casework as a result of the then Government forcing cuts on local government that led to many redundancies. We had to triple the amount of casework time, which was crucial in ensuring that that terrible period of redundancy was managed in a humane way that helped people.
Ian Lavery
I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. If the Government start to decide how much, or how little, facility time individuals should have, there will be a breakdown in communication between the trade unions, the workforce and, indeed, the employers. In local government and the NHS, facility time is much valued and to the benefit of the general public.
If we applied the 40% and 50% thresholds to members of the coalition Cabinet prior to the election, not one of them would have been elected. We have to be fair and consistent with regard to thresholds. The average turnout for the police and crime commissioner elections was 17%, but nobody is saying that we should not listen to anything they have to say. The Government themselves were elected by only 24% of the electorate, but not many people are saying—although a lot of people are wishing it—that they should not have the right to govern. Fairness should prevail.
There have been many discussions about how e-balloting would provide for a much bigger turnout. That is what the Conservative Government want, and I agree: we want more people to participate in the ballot, hence the threshold issue. It is terribly unfair to suggest that e-balloting is not a secure way to ballot individuals, because it is.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the time we are in. It is pretty clear, as I understand it from what Labour Front Benchers are saying, that we are in a time of increased militant union activism. The shadow Chancellor has said:
“We will support all demonstrations in Parliament or on the picket line. We will be with you at every stage.”
Can the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) not see that what we are trying to do is to protect the public through increased accountability and transparency?
Ian Lavery
I do not recognise the words of the hon. Gentleman, who usually addresses issues in a much more productive way.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On protecting the public, we ought to remember that when we fought in this place to ban hunting with dogs, it was the Tories—not trade unionists—who let the protesters on to the Floor of this House. When Conservative Members talk about freedom of speech, perhaps they should remember some of their own past activities.
Ian Lavery
That is a fair point, well made by my hon. Friend.
There are lot of examples of e-balloting, including its use in mayoral elections and by the Central Arbitration Committee. I am a great believer in balloting in the workplace and, indeed, in a hybrid of both methods, to make sure that people actually get involved in such important ballots.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
What kind of society are we moving towards when, under the proposed 50% and 40% threshold rule, a strike would be illegal even if 79% of the votes cast were in favour of strike action?
Ian Lavery
That is absolutely correct and spot on.
I will very briefly mention one other issue. The Conservatives are suggesting something that happens nowhere else in society—that those who do not cast a vote will be classified as voting no. That is outrageous and horrendous. It is undemocratic. It is against International Labour Organisation conventions and against European Court of Human Rights decisions. That will— I repeat, will—be challenged.
I end by simply saying that, in my view, there is no place in today’s society for this unbelievably brutal attack on hard-working men and women in the workplace. I predict one thing: that when ordinary people are pressurised too much, there will be a reaction. I predict from the Floor of the House of Commons that there will be civil disobedience because bad laws need to be changed.
James Cartlidge
I will speak primarily to amendments 15, 16 and 21, tabled by the Scottish National party, which relate to the clauses on thresholds and the termination of the ballot mandate. My understanding is that if they were added to the Bill, they would, in effect, be completely redundant because they would require the provisions to be agreed by all the devolved authorities and, interestingly, by the Mayor of London, who I expect would very strongly agree.
It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee, my first as a Member of Parliament. I can genuinely say that I, for one, have a great admiration for the union movement. As a new MP, I found it stimulating and interesting to cross-examine the five most powerful union leaders. I went up to them afterwards and shook their hands. In fact, Sir Paul Kenny, perhaps sensing my inexperience in these matters, asked me whether I would like to come and join him on a picket line to find out what it was like. I am not sure which picket line he was referring to—perhaps the Chief Whip’s—so I declined it on that occasion.
James Cartlidge
Well, he gave me an invitation.
I must confess that there are many parts of the Bill on which I would not have been an expert had I not sat on the Public Bill Committee, but many members of the public think the same. If we were to talk about parts of the Bill to people who were not au fait with the details of unions or who were not themselves unionised, they would not necessarily be familiar with or see its significance. I do not say that with any disrespect to such issues, which I recognise are important to many Opposition Members.
For most members of the public, the key issue is the threshold. This is about the large strikes that, although relatively small in number, have had a massive impact, such as the London tube strikes. I would say to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who made a very impassioned speech, that if he wants to see fury and people considering civil unrest, he should go and watch London commuters trying to fight their way on to a bus because the tube was out of action because of a ballot on lower than the threshold we will require.
David Rutley
Too often, we hear Labour Members talk about the inconvenience of a strike. In fact, a strike can cause major disruption. Surely we should focus on that. We need clear accountability to ensure that such disruption is minimised wherever possible.
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend puts his point very well.
I would remind the House that when we took evidence, we heard from Roy Rickhuss—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—the general secretary of the Community trade union. He is of course very busy, at this very difficult time, with the steel industry. When asked about thresholds, he said that
“it is about having proper industrial relations and having a partnership approach. I do believe a threshold of 50% plus one is fair and reasonable, because that is what we have—that is our democracy.––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c. 26-27, Q66.]
Mr Anderson
The hon. Gentleman has commented a few times about the fury of commuters. I understand that completely; we are commuters as well. If the provision goes through and the Bill is enacted, and a strike then takes place legitimately, is he really saying that that the people he represents will no longer be furious?
James Cartlidge
No, I am not saying that. If the strike took place with the strong support that has to be achieved under these provisions, the public would at least understand that it had full consent. They are angry about the strikes—we heard about them in evidence given to us by bus companies, rail companies and others—in which, on relatively small turnouts, massive disruption has been caused to millions of people.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does not ban or prohibit strikes, but ensures that the hundreds of thousands or even millions of people who are affected by strikes in vital public services can be reassured that there is a genuine mandate for such action?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend puts it extremely well.
I finish with this point. The hon. Member for Wansbeck asked what support there was for the Bill. We have heard from the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, bus companies, rail companies and, above all, the people who use the services. Even Len McCluskey issued a letter to the Committee supporting the 50% threshold. I accept that that was with e-balloting, but there is strong principled support across the country for changes on thresholds. I will leave it there.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Has the hon. Gentleman given way or finished? We need to get this right.
Ian Lavery
I need to clarify the point about Len McCluskey. Unite the union suggested that discussions should take place. It wrote to the Prime Minister suggesting that thresholds would be irrelevant if the Government introduced e-balloting in the workplace. That was the precondition.
James Cartlidge
I thought it was fair to give way to the hon. Gentleman, given that I had mentioned him a couple of times, but the best person to take those points forward is the Minister. On that point, I am happy to conclude.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
On Second Reading, I asked a question to which I have had no answer to date. Quite simply, what problem is this proposed legislation designed to solve? What calamity do we have in our land in the field of industrial relations that means that the Government of the day must prioritise this legislation? I cannot find any. The average worker in the United Kingdom goes on strike for one day every 15 years. It is therefore ridiculous that this matter should be the priority of the Government.
I believe that the only reason the Bill is before us, with so few Government Members listening to the debate, is purely ideological. I do not say that all Members or all strands of the Conservative party are against trade unions, but there most definitely is a strand that is very unempathetic to trade unions and that sees the ability of people to combine together in the workforce to prosecute their interests as an impediment on the rights of employers to make their profits and run their enterprises as they see fit. There is a hostile attitude to trade unions. That, unfortunately for the working people of this country, is the strand within the Tory party that is in the ascendency and in the driving seat in respect of this legislation.
It is a great irony, is it not, that to introduce this legislation, the Conservative party will have to have an unprecedented degree of state interference in the affairs of private enterprise? There will have to be state regulation of trade unions that is more akin to a totalitarian than a democratic regime.
I support the SNP amendments that would require consent from the local and devolved authorities in the United Kingdom for the provisions of the Bill to be implemented. In parallel with this discussion, we have been having a debate on the Scotland Bill about the competences and authorities that should go to the Scottish Parliament. In fact, we argued that this entire area should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament simply because it would mean that proposals such as this Bill would never see the light of day. However, we know that there is not a majority in this House for devolving these powers and I want it to be clear that we are not arguing for that today.
What we are arguing for goes to the heart of the debate in this country about who runs public services. It has been the will of this Parliament that many of our public services should be devolved to local and devolved administrations. It is therefore not right for this Parliament to hinder the ability of the managers of those services to deliver them by interfering and setting requirements on the most important resource that is available to them: the workforce. Just because the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has a problem managing relations on the London underground, the rest of country should not have to suffer.
A series of amendments seek consent on each of the major provisions in the Bill. I will speak about some of those measures, but I will try not to repeat what has already been said by my hon. Friends, much of which I completely agree with. A number of mechanisms in the Bill are designed to make it harder for a trade union to win a ballot to go on strike—let us be clear about that objective. However, Conservative Members are mistaken if they think that that will make a problem go away.
It seems that among the authors of this Bill there is great ignorance about the process of managing industry. Often, if a concern or dispute arises among the workforce, and members go to their trade union and the union decides to do something, that can be a way of resolving a dispute or problem to the benefit of the industry or service concerned. The additional measures in the Bill will make it harder for unions to go on strike, but that will let problems fester and dysfunction continue, which will not benefit the trade, industry or service in which the dispute is taking place. When a union eventually passes those hurdles and gets a mandate for a strike, that strike will be bigger, longer and more vicious than it ought to have been had the matter been attended to at an earlier stage. I contend that measures that the Government think are about making it harder for unions to take strike action will have a deleterious effect on industrial relations and make it harder for the management of public or private services to deliver and get the consent of their workforce.
Given the way that the issue is being discussed, it seems that Conservative Members conceive of facility time as some sort of stipend whereby union officials spend all day organising strike action and trying to bring industry to its knees. It is nothing of the kind, and if those Members had worked in a public service for one day, they would understand that often, union stewards and officials play an extremely constructive role at local level in the delivery of that industry or service. In many ways, their role can be described as that of a welfare officer, and officials often help out individual employees who may have problems with management or at work, but who may also just have personal problems that are affecting their work.
Jo Stevens
When giving evidence to the Bill Committee, the general secretary of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, John Hannett, said that trade unions are problem solvers rather than problem causers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Tommy Sheppard
I agree wholeheartedly and my experience all my working life, as both employer and employee, indicates that that is exactly the case. Facility time can be a good thing for management and industry, and for getting things done.
If a local authority, health board or whatever has a check-off facility that has been voluntarily agreed with its workers to deduct a payroll subscription for a union, how can it be okay for that to be outlawed and criminalised, when the same facility can be used by the National Trust or any charity or insurance scheme that wishes? That is frankly ridiculous and punitive in the extreme, and it belies the fact that the Bill, despite its title, is an anti-trade union Bill. Hopefully we will get an explanation for that when the Minister winds up the debate. If this is about money and the cost to the public sector, I am sure that unions will be happy to negotiate paying. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) remarked earlier, local authorities and others may be able to make money out of providing a service for payroll check-off.
Time is short and I know that other Members want to speak. I say simply that if the amendment is voted down and we do not agree to the consent of the London Mayor, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, or whoever is delivering the service being required for this provision to be implemented, and that the Government will force services to do whatever they want, even if that does not make sense locally, will we not be entering into uncharted territory? The Government will effectively be declaring that they are prepared to go to war with the devolved Administrations and local authorities in this country, which they have said should be responsible for the delivery of those services.
As I have said so many times, this is one of the things in the Conservatives’ manifesto that I do not think they ever expected they would have to implement. They do not have a mandate for this, and I ask them, even at this eleventh hour, to pull back.
Mr Anderson
I am proud to declare my interests in relation to the trade union movement. I am glad that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) has returned to his place, because he talked about intimidation in workplace ballots. I refer him to the last two workplace ballots run by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1981 and 1983, in very tense times. There was an 80% turnout in both ballots on taking national strike action to fight pit closures. In both ballots, more than two thirds of the members said no. Where was the proof of intimidation there?
The hon. Gentleman also claimed that my party wants to go back to workplace ballots only, but that is completely untrue. We do not want these changes, but if we have to have them, let us be serious about them. We have tabled amendments to keep workplace ballots, but we have also said, “Let’s have electronic voting.”
It is clear that this Bill is about bias. It is about blocking people like me from having the opportunity to go through the trade union movement and get the skill, the confidence, the training and the support from a trade union to become part of the political movement that the trade unions gave birth to, so that I can come in here and challenge people such as the hon. Gentleman who want to destroy the things that I believe in and he hates. That is what this Bill is about—nothing more, nothing less.
Who wants this Bill? When I was canvassing in Blaydon during the election, not one person said to me, “We want to tighten trade union legislation.” More pertinently, before the debate today, not one person asked me to support the Bill. But 431 people have written to me directly to ask me to oppose it. The employers do not want it, the workers do not want it and it is clear that the public do not want it. If this Bill is forced through, we will see more industrial unrest, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) said. Disputes will not end, victimisation in the workplace will not end, health and safety abuses at work will not end, discrimination will not end and exploitation will not end.
Frustrated workers will not stand back, no matter what the legislation says. We will end up with workers being forced to break rotten laws. If that happens, I would say to members of my party and other MPs of conscience that we should stand four-square behind those workers. This Bill is nothing more than an attempt to undermine democracy. The Conservatives are even abusing the memories of Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher—and I cannot believe I am saying that.
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
We have heard fierce argument in Committee and today from those who would seek to exclude some areas of Great Britain from the reach of the Bill, or who would seek to allow coverage in those areas only with the consent of the bodies to which certain other responsibilities have been devolved. Nothing in the Bill need cut across the positive relationships that we have heard about between unions and Government in Scotland and Wales.
There is nothing to stop union representatives using paid facility time to fulfil their union duties to help represent working people. All the Bill does in relation to facility time is introduce measures that have already been introduced in the civil service, and union duties are still admirably and adequately fulfilled in the civil service.
It is important for the productivity and prosperity of Great Britain as a whole that arrangements pertaining to employment matters apply consistently across the whole country. Employers do not see boundaries when engaging staff. Many employers have employees in all three countries, in London and in various English authorities. Having different employment laws applying would produce a complex situation, involving much confusion and cost for business.
Jonathan Edwards
As the Minister will be aware, this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland because these issues are devolved. Is he aware of the comments by Dr Stephen Farry, the Minister in Northern Ireland? He said:
“I do not believe that there is a case for winding back the clock in terms of trade union reform or that such regression would also be supported by the Executive and the Assembly.”
Is it seriously a surprise to the Minister that that Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales agree with those points?
Nick Boles
I am sorry we were not able to hear from the hon. Gentleman directly, because I am sure he has much to contribute. He will be aware there is a particular historical record in Northern Ireland, which is why, quite a long time ago, employment law was devolved to Northern Ireland. That historical record, I am glad to say, does not apply elsewhere in Great Britain. This is why employment and industrial relations law are clearly reserved matters under the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements. It is entirely in order for the Government to propose that the Bill applies to the whole of Great Britain and does not require the consent of the devolved Governments or any local authorities.
Christian Matheson
Several private bus companies in Chester have recently withdrawn rural services, which is inconveniencing commuters in Chester. Why are the Government not legislating to stop them doing that?
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those people have alternative services, and where they do have alternatives we are not proposing to introduce the higher mandate. We are producing the higher mandate when a service is effectively a monopoly in the life of consumers, and they have no other possibility they can arrange at short notice.
On the certification officer, it is entirely reasonable for a union regulator to mirror the geographical extent of unions themselves. It would be very disruptive to have a single union subject to different regulatory arrangements in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain—or, worse, for a union to be subject to no regulation at all in Scotland or Wales, but subject in parts of England. It is worth noting that the 1992 Act already provides, under section 254, that the certification officer may appoint an assistant certification officer for Scotland, and may delegate to that assistant certification officer such functions as he thinks appropriate in relation to unions based in Scotland.
Chris Stephens
The Minister talks about unions being organised on a geographical basis. Does that mean that the Educational Institute of Scotland will be exempt from the Bill?
Nick Boles
The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have had very lively and enjoyable debates in Committee, knows that the provisions in the Bill apply under the devolution settlement throughout Great Britain and to all institutions, including those active only within Scotland.
In conclusion on these amendments, Parliament has put in place proper procedures for considering what should be reserved to Westminster and what should be devolved to other Administrations. Debates took place in this Chamber only yesterday on what should be devolved and what should be reserved to Westminster. Employment and industrial relations law is reserved.
Turning to other balloting methods proposed in amendments tabled by Opposition parties, it is vital that union members, employers and the public have the utmost confidence in ballot processes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) argued so clearly. Without that, the integrity of the whole system would be called into question; members would not use it, unions would not rely on it, and employers and the public would not trust it. That is not in anyone’s interests.
As I said in Committee, and as the Prime Minister has said, we have no objections in principle to the introduction of e-balloting. I expect that in some time—maybe in five or 10 years—the practical objections I am about to outline will have been overcome. It is simply a matter of time and human ingenuity. However, there are practical objections, and the Opposition cannot just dismiss them. The onus is on them, in proposing new forms of voting, to show that the objections can be overcome.
The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy received evidence from the Open Rights Group, and I quoted that evidence on Second Reading. This February, Jim Killock, its executive director, gave an interview to The Guardian, in which he said of online balloting:
“This is a very hard problem to solve and so far nobody has managed it. Accountability in most software systems means a clear audit trail of who did what, which of course would violate the basic question of secrecy…You have the complexity of making sure that internet systems are secure, that the voting equipment can be trusted despite being attached to the internet, and that every voter’s machine is not being tampered with. Given the vast numbers of machines that are infected by criminally controlled malware and the temptation for someone to interfere in an election, internet voting is a bad idea.”
I am not aware that the gentleman quoted is a Conservative or that he supports the Government. [Interruption.] Instead of shouting at me, Opposition Members should reflect on the objections raised and work with us to try to overcome them. We are absolutely open to discussing these practical objections, and to working with the Opposition parties and anyone else in society to overcome them.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend has spoken about problems with processes, but we are talking about some of the most venerable institutions in our country: trade unions. At this early stage of the Parliament, with five years of important discussions to have with trade unions across the country on wages, terms and conditions, productivity and efficiencies, does he want to say to trade union leaders that the Government do not trust them to run a ballot?
Nick Boles
I want to say to trade union leaders that when they can overcome the objections listed not by me, but by experts from groups such as the Open Rights Group, the Government will be happy to work with them to implement new forms of balloting. Until then, however, we remain to be persuaded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon is right that there is no requirement for primary legislation to introduce new forms of balloting. It can be done under powers in section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the amendments.
Chris Stephens
I thank Members who have contributed to this debate. I have been struck by three things. I say gently to the Minister and the Conservatives—
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am going to stop you in a second, so you need to say whether you want to withdraw the amendment.
Chris Stephens
Okay, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Workplace ballots and ballots by electronic means
‘(1) Workplace ballots and balloting by electronic means, shall be permitted in the types of trade union ballots specified in subsection (2) with effect from the commencement date for sections 2 and 3 (Ballot thresholds for industrial action);
(2) The types of trade union ballots to which subsections (1) and (3) apply are those referred to in Chapters IV (elections for certain positions), V (industrial action), VI (political resolutions) and VII (approval of instruments of amalgamation or transfer).
(3) In relation to the ballots referred to in subsection (2)—
(a) the employer shall be under a duty to co-operate generally in connection with the ballot with the union, which shall include not undertaking surveillance of, intercepting or otherwise interfering with any communications between the union and its members, and with any person appointed in accordance with section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer); and
(b) every person who is entitled to vote in the ballot shall be permitted to do so without interference or constraint imposed by any employer of the union’s members, or any of its employees or any person its behalf.
(4) Where in any proceedings an employer claims, or will claim, that a union has failed to comply with any requirement referred to in subsection 226 of the Act (Requirement of ballot before action by trade union), the union will have a complete defence to those proceedings if the employer has failed to comply with any part of its duty under subsection (3)(a) or it, or any of its employees or any person on its behalf, has imposed any interference or constraint of a type referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) In this section—
(a) “Workplace ballot” means a ballot in which votes may be cast in the workplace by such means as is or are determined by the union. Such means of voting in the workplace determined by the union may, but are not required to, include electronic means; and
(b) “electronic means” means such electronic means as is or determined by the union and, in each case, where section 226B of the Act (Appointment of Scrutineer) imposes an obligation on the union, is confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section, before the opening day of the ballot as meeting the required standard.
(6) Where electronic means are determined by the union, and, if applicable, confirmed by the person appointed under section 226B of the Act as meeting the required standard as provided for in subsection (5), the means of voting in the ballot shall also include postal voting, or some means of voting in a workplace ballot other than electronic means, where determined by the union and, in a case in which section 226B of the Act imposes an obligation on the union (Appointment of Scrutineer), confirmed by the person appointed in accordance with that section as being reasonably necessary to ensure that the required standard is satisfied.
(7) For the purpose of subsections (5) and (6), a workplace ballot or means of electronic voting satisfies ‘the required standard’ for the ballot if, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so;
(b) votes cast are secret; and
(c) the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised.
(8) Any provision of the Act shall be disapplied to the extent necessary to give effect to this section.”—(Chris Stephens.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kevin Brennan
I beg to move amendment 6, page 4, line 31, leave out clause 9.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, page 5, line 6, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Amendment 10, page 5, leave out lines 7 to 19 and insert—
‘(3) A picket supervisor is required to show a constable a letter of authorisation only if—
(a) the constable provides documentary evidence that he or she is a constable;
(b) the constable provides his or her name, and the name of the police station to which he or she is attached; and
(c) the constable explains the reasons for the request to see the letter of authorisation.
(4) If a picket supervisor complies with a constable‘s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was complied with.
(5) If a picket supervisor fails to comply with a constable‘s request to produce a letter of authorisation, the police officer shall provide the picket supervisor with a written record of the request, the reasons for it, and an acknowledgment that the request was not complied with.
(6) Information about the identity of a picket supervisor and any information relating to the production of a letter of authorisation shall be retained by the police only for the purposes of giving evidence in legal proceedings directly related to the picketing to which it is connected.
(7) For the avoidance of doubt neither a member of the public nor an employer shall be entitled to request a picket supervisor to produce a letter of authorisation.”
Amendment 39, page 5, line 7, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Amendment 40, page 5, line 10, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Amendment 41, page 5, line 15, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Government amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 42, page 5, line 17, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Amendment 43, page 5, line 20, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Amendment 44, page 5, line 25, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would make the obligations under clause 9 voluntary rather than mandatory.
Government amendment 4.
New clause 1—Industrial action and agency workers—
‘(1) Subject to subsection (3), an employment business shall not introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer to perform—
(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or
(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,
unless in either case the employment business does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) an employer (“the hirer“) shall not procure an employment agency to supply a work-seeker to perform—
(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part in a strike or other industrial action (“the first worker“), or
(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform the duties normally performed by the first worker,
unless in either case the hirer does not, and has no reasonable grounds for knowing, that the first worker is taking part in a strike or other industrial action.
(3) Subsections (2) and (3) shall not apply if, in relation to the first workers, the strike or other industrial action in question is an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action for the purposes of section 237 of the 1992 Act.
(4) For the purposes of this section an “employment business” means an employment business as defined by the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
(5) Breach of the provisions of this section shall be actionable against both the employment business and the hirer for breach of statutory duty.
(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the duty in subsections (1) and (2) above are owed to—
(a) any worker who is taking part in the strike or industrial action; and
(b) any trade union of which such a worker is a member.”
New clause 3—Statements on Bills affecting Trade Union political funds—
‘(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill, if the Bill contains provisions which are likely to affect the machinery of Trade Union political funds—
(a) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced with the agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons, or
(b) make a statement to the effect that the Bill has been introduced without agreement of the leaders of all the political parties represented in the House of Commons as the case may be.
(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.”
New clause 4—Certification Officer—
For subsections (2) to (4) of section 254 of the 1992 Act substitute—
‘(2) The Certification Officer shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.
(3) There shall be a Certification Officer for Scotland, equal in status to the Certification Officer in subsections (1) and (2) above.
(4) The Certification Officer for Scotland shall be appointed by the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, and the person appointed shall have expertise in trade union law.””
Amendment 27, page 5, line 31, leave out Clause 10.
Amendment 1, page 7, line 6, at end insert—
‘(2A) After section 85 of the 1992 Act insert—
“85A Payment of political funds directly to political parties
(1) The opt-in notice at section 84 of this Act must include a provision to permit the member of a trade union to direct the trade union to transfer the member’s political fund contributions directly to a UK political party rather than the trade union’s political fund.
(2) In this section a “UK political party” is a political party that is on the register of political parties in Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintained by the Electoral Commission.
(3) Where a trade union member indicates that his or her contributions should be transferred directly to a UK political party, the union must make the transfer within 31 days of receipt of the contributions from the member.””
This amendment would empower trade union members to direct their political fund contributions be paid directly to a political party rather than into a union’s political fund.
Amendment 28, page 7, line 11, leave out clause 11.
Amendment 37, page 8, line 17, clause 12, leave out “how many” and insert “the percentage”.
Amendment 25, page 8, line 19, leave out “total amount” and insert “the percentage”.
Amendment 26, page 8, line 29, at end insert
“and whether these are met in part or in full by a contribution from a trade union.”
Amendment 24, page 8, line 29, at end insert—
“(f) the percentage of relevant union officials whose facility time is met by a contribution from a trade union in whole or in part.”
Amendment 23, page 8, line 42, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Amendment 11, page 9, line 32, clause 13, at end insert—
‘(1A) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”
Amendment 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
‘(9A) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations.”
Amendment 13, page 10, line 45, at end insert—
“(d) (1B) “treaty obligations” means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.”
Amendment 5, page 11, line 12, clause 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) Subject to subsection (2A), an employer is a relevant public sector employer if the employer is a public authority specified, or of a description specified, in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.
(2A) An employer is not a relevant public sector employer so far as trade union subscription deductions are concerned where there exists an agreement between the employer and a trade union which provides for—
(a) the remittance by the employer to the trade union of those deductions, and
(b) the making of a payment by the trade union to the employer in respect of that remittance.”
Amendment 36, page 11, line 37, at end insert—
‘(8) The regulations may require an employer to take any steps under this section except to the extent that these steps are incompatible with treaty obligations, where ‘treaty obligations’ means treaties of (a) the Council of Europe and (b) the International Labour Organisation, which are in force and which have been ratified by the United Kingdom.“”
Amendment 35, page 12, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4) A minister shall not exercise powers under this section except to the extent that the exercise of these powers is compatible with treaty obligations.”
Kevin Brennan
I must say I thought we won the last debate, but somehow or other we lost the vote. As Disraeli said, perhaps a majority is its own repartee, but perhaps things will be different when these matters are discussed in another place.
Amendment 6 would delete clause 9 and leave picketing arrangements as they currently stand. Picketing activities are already heavily regulated in the UK by an extensive range of civil and criminal laws. Unions must comply with the requirements for peaceful pickets contained in section 220 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and operate in accordance with the accompanying code of practice. The Conservative Government have failed to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in the Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee concluded that the BIS impact assessments on picketing restrictions were not fit for purpose.
The Government have made some minor concessions, which I will come on to later, but these new provisions go far beyond what is fair or necessary. In fact they were described by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) as Franco-style and I think that is an appropriate description by a Conservative Member.
The clause will introduce a new restriction on picketing activities by trade unions and their members, and failure to comply with these over-prescriptive requirements will expose trade unions to legal challenges. Employers will be able to apply to court for an injunction preventing, or imposing restrictions on, a picket or even for damages for failing to wear an armband on a picket line.
Over the summer, the Government ran a very short consultation. It was utterly insufficient given the scale of the Bill’s proposed changes. The Government sought to rely on evidence gathered during the Carr review, even though the Government’s own impact assessment confirmed that
“this evidence could not be substantiated”.
Carr decided he was unable to make evidence-based proposals or recommendations for change as originally instructed
“due to the increasingly political environment within which [he] was operating coupled with the lack of a significant enough body of evidence to support any recommendations for change”.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend see the irony in the supposed party of free marketeers intervening in an agreement between two other parties?
Kevin Brennan
Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to that point when we discuss some of the later amendments. For the moment, I shall talk about the picketing provisions.
The BIS consultation document also acknowledged that most pickets conform to the guidance set out in the code of practice. The Regulatory Performance Committee’s review of the Government’s impact assessment also found that
“there is little evidence presented that there will be any significant benefits arising from the proposal”.
Liberty’s briefing for today’s debate states:
“In the absence of any evidence that these changes are needed, these bureaucratic proposals can only be construed as an attempt to create a situation whereby individuals and unions are set up to make mistakes, subjecting them to legal action and making strike action even more expensive and risky than it already is.”
Chris Stephens
Does the shadow Minister share my concern, which was also mentioned in evidence to the Bill Committee, that the proposed new picketing arrangements could result in the increased blacklisting of trade union activists?
Kevin Brennan
There is every likelihood of that happening, as was clearly revealed in the evidence given to the Committee.
The current UK law provides sufficient safeguards, including provisions for the police to crack down on illegality and breaches of the peace, but all the while protecting the rights of trade union members to engage in peaceful picketing at the entrance to their workplace. These measures are not only unnecessary; they are an affront to democracy, which is why our amendment would remove them from the Bill altogether by deleting clause 9.
I said earlier that the Government had introduced some minor changes as a result of the consultation. Their amendments in this group are the result of significant scrutiny and pressure from my hon. Friends in Committee. The Government have now decided to reverse their position on the plans to introduce even tighter restrictions on union pickets and protests that they proposed in their consultation over the summer. They have also granted minor concessions in amendments 2, 3 and 4 that loosen the requirements relating to letters and picket supervisors.
Trade unions will not now be required to publish picket and protest plans 14 days in advance, detailing where, when and how they plan to protest and whether they propose to use Twitter and Facebook accounts as part of their campaign. It is extraordinary that that was ever proposed; it is a ludicrous proposal. Also, the Government will not now introduce new criminal offences on picket lines or direct local authorities to use antisocial behaviour provisions against union members participating in pickets and protests. Those minor concessions do not go nearly far enough, however. The Bill still contains many draconian measures that will violate the civil liberties of trade unions and their members. Clause 9 will still impose significant new restrictions on the ability of trade unions and their members to picket and protest peacefully, thereby undermining their civil liberties.
Ian Mearns
Perhaps it is regrettable that, having consulted on the matter, the Government have now withdrawn their proposal to outlaw secondary or wildcat tweeting. [Laughter.] Does my hon. Friend also agree that the evidence from the Police Federation and the National Police Chiefs Council made it clear that even the police do not want this legislation?
Kevin Brennan
Indeed; the fact that they did not want it was clear from the evidence of the Police Federation in particular. Satire is a powerful tool, and even when the Government make proposals that are apparently beyond satire, my hon. Friend manages to make a good point with his remark about wildcat tweeting.
Picketing will now be lawful only if unions appoint a picket supervisor and notify the police of their name and contact details. The supervisors will be required to carry a letter of authorisation which must be shown to the employers or their representatives on demand. It is also astonishing that they will still be required to wear armbands to identify themselves. Sara Ogilvie of Liberty said the following during the oral evidence sessions:
“The thought that we would require a person in 2015 to wear an armband and carry a letter of authorisation at the behest of the state in order to exercise their rights does not seem right.”––[Official Report, Trade Union Public Bill Committee, 13 October 2015; c.58, Q157.]
She was understating it. Any person with a feeling for freedom and liberty would feel uneasy at these provisions. They smack of a political culture alien to that which, whatever our political differences in this place, is normally shared across parties in this country. Why do trade unions engaged in a lawful trade dispute deserve to be singled out for what I can only describe as un-British treatment?
Jo Stevens
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill in effect creates two tiers of civil liberties and human rights in this country? One tier has much higher restrictions for trade union members and the other tier is for the rest of the population.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Why is it only trade unions that are being singled out in this way? I think we explored some of the reasons earlier in this afternoon’s debate.
New clause 1, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and his colleagues, is similar to the new clause 12 we tabled in Committee. It would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during industrial action. As we know, the Government are planning to remove the ban on agencies knowingly supplying agency workers to replace striking workers. Kate Shoesmith, the head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, which has nearly 3,500 corporate members, has said:
“We are not convinced that putting agencies and temporary workers into the middle of difficult industrial relations situations is a good idea for agencies, workers or their clients.”
The CIPD, the professional body for HR, which has about 140,000 members, warned that the Government’s plans to reform trade union laws are “an outdated response”, given the challenges employers face today.
Rachael Maskell
In the dispute at Northampton hospital, the pathologists were locked out of the lab and the trust brought in agency workers. That escalated risk to such an extent that samples were not able to be used for testing. Is it not the case that agency workers can make things far worse rather than better?
Kevin Brennan
They can make matters far worse. When we look at this proposal alongside clause 7, it becomes clear that the introduction of an extended notice period is there to give the employer additional time to organise agency workers to undermine the industrial action, as well as to be able to prepare for legal challenges. My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head: this is bad for safety and bad for service users, and bad because it could serve to prolong industrial action unnecessarily. It will also be bad for the general public. Conservative Members ought to care about the fact that it will also be bad for social cohesion in this country. Presumably, as a next step the Government will be getting the Department for Work and Pensions to sanction the unemployed for refusing to act as strike breakers.
Christian Matheson
Has my hon. Friend also considered that in the long term the resentment that will be caused in the business affected will also mean that those actions will be bad for business?
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. He knows well, and Conservative Members ought to know, that the festering resentment that would arise as a result of this kind of approach to industrial relations would last for many years, and in some communities would never be forgotten.
The TUC is firmly opposed to this proposal, which in its opinion will breach international law. The International Labour Organisation’s freedom of association committee has confirmed that
“the hiring of workers to break a strike in a sector which cannot be regarded as an essential sector in the strict sense of the term...constitutes a serious violation of freedom of association”.
New clause 1 would insert in the Bill a ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes, and we will therefore support it if it is pushed to a vote tonight. I also want to press amendment 6 to a Division—the lead amendment in this group, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.
Let me say a few brief words about amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It would allow check-off if employers and unions agreed that they wanted it, provided that the unions paid for the service. I understand why the hon. Gentleman would table such an amendment, as it seems to reflect some of the basic values that I thought were supposed to be in the DNA of his political party. When one party is willing by agreement to provide a service to another party in exchange for payment, the state should not interfere unless the service forms some kind of criminal or immoral activity.
Check-off is a voluntary agreement by an employer to collect through its pay roll the union subscription of trade union members who are its employees. Despite what the Government seem to think, that is not a criminal or an immoral activity. Why on earth would a Conservative Government think it is right for the state to proscribe a voluntary agreement between an employer and an employee where a payment for that service is involved? I completely understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled his amendment.
What is wrong with an employer, in whatever sector, voluntarily agreeing, as part of an attempt to maintain good relations with employees, to help collect the trade union subscription in exchange for an administrative payment? How on earth is it the responsibility of Government, particularly a Conservative Government, to introduce a provision of this kind?
Jeremy Lefroy
The hon. Gentleman has anticipated the remarks that I would have made had I caught Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye. Does he agree that many employers in both the private and the public sectors have said how convenient, positive and mutually beneficial this arrangement is and how they do not see any downside to it whatsoever?
Kevin Brennan
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is as baffled as I am as to why the Government are going down this road. It really is quite an extraordinary provision in the Bill. Can anyone on the Government Benches answer this: in what other sphere would a Conservative Government legislate to ban a simple, mutually beneficial transaction?
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Brennan
I am waiting for an intervention from a Government Member. Not even the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) can manage an intervention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Brennan
Whom shall I choose from the Labour Benches? I shall choose my neighbour first.
Stephen Doughty
There is also the absurdity that there are many other similar arrangements in place for charitable giving, cycle-to-work schemes or childcare schemes. It seems extraordinarily discriminatory to be acting in this way with regard to these voluntary arrangements for trade union subscriptions.
Kevin Brennan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and gives further power to the point that I am making and the point that the hon. Member for Stafford is trying to make by virtue of his amendment.
Dawn Butler
I noted that nobody on the Government Benches could help my hon. Friend with his question. The only reason I could think of for such a ban is to try to destroy the trade union movement.
Kevin Brennan
Well, I am quite shocked by that accusation from my hon. Friend. On a serious note, there are many colleagues on the Government Benches who are members of trade unions. It was not so long ago that my old union, the National Union of Teachers, used to sponsor Conservative Members of Parliament. I will give hon. Members some benefit of the doubt here. I will actually believe for a moment that the majority of Conservative Members do not want to destroy the trade union movement, because they are democrats and we live in a democratic society. What conclusion could somebody looking at this proposal draw, other than that it exists to inflict damage in an illiberal and absolutely inappropriate manner on voluntary trade union associations and employees’ voluntary agreements with their employers?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I know that in a former life the hon. Gentleman was a teacher, and he is making a very didactic case for his point of view. He is obviously a born-again libertarian. Is not the corollary of his argument that it is for individuals with free information to decide whether they wish to make a contribution to a trade union? That is the spirit of the Bill, rather than an element of compulsion.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is talking my language. I absolutely agree with that proposition, but has he read the clause? Does he understand what it means? Has he read the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford? The Government are banning any opportunity for an individual to enter into an agreement with an employer, and banning the employer from entering into such an agreement with its workforce, even in exchange for ready money. That service is not being given away, but its provision will be banned even when employees are paying for it. I was a teacher, and I was not trying to be didactic; I was trying to tease out a reaction, and obviously I got one from him. He should have a closer look at what his Government are actually doing and what he is actually voting for. A majority may be the best repartee, as Disraeli said, but I do not think Disraeli would have thought that this fitted with the principles of a one nation Conservative party.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to a fellow Cardiff Catholic. He may recall that similar predictions of the death of the trade union movement, of which I am a huge fan and supporter on this side of the House, were made when earlier legislation was passed—for example, in the early 1980s. The trade unions came through; they survived and blossomed. Why does the hon. Gentleman think this Bill sounds the death knell for trade unions, when in 13 years of Labour Government there was no repeal of previous legislation?
Kevin Brennan
I am glad that trade unions are strongly supported in the Hoare house, but the hon. Gentleman should read the provision and then the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stafford, which seeks to tease out the fact that this measure is particularly illiberal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kevin Brennan
Before I give way to hon. Friends, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon because he is usually paid by the word.
Mr Djanogly
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have now looked at amendment 5, and in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who made the point that an individual may want to contract with his employer, I point out that the measure talks about the trade union contracting on behalf of employers, which is a rather different point.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman does not understand that trade unions are democratic organisations. They do things on behalf of their members because they are elected and chosen to do so as democratic, voluntary organisations. There is no attack on the individual, and unusually for him his intervention is specious.
Steve Rotheram
Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister’s promise of a bonfire of red tape? Does he believe that this measure makes arrangements more or less bureaucratic for employers and trade unions?
Kevin Brennan
The so-called one regulation in, one regulation out rule—[Interruption.] Oh, it’s two out, is it? The rule is not being followed in the case of trade unions. Clearly, regulation of trade unions is not considered to be regulation at all, when in fact it is an extraordinary piece of regulation.
Paula Sherriff
Does my hon. Friend agree that this move to end check-off discriminates against trade unions, as the ban is unlikely to extend to other payroll deductions, including those for charity payments, pensions and cycle-to-work schemes?
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. Other hon. Members have made that point and my hon. Friend is right to emphasise it.
Kevin Brennan
I will give way one last time, then I will try to conclude so that other hon. Members can speak.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The intervention from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) gives away how the Conservatives are prepared to dance on a pinhead in order to support the Bill. To suggest that an employer would be better off to contract with each employee individually to collect their union dues, rather than to do so collectively through the trade unions, is barmy.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) referred to our Catholic backgrounds, and my hon. Friend makes a veiled reference to St Thomas Aquinas when he refers to dancing on a pinhead. That is absolutely what the Government are doing—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend may not have known that he was doing so. His theological education is slightly lacking. The Government are dancing on a pinhead to try to justify an unjustifiable provision.
Given that no Conservative Member can understand why the Government would want to ban a simple mutually beneficial voluntary transaction which involves payment for a service by one party and its representatives to another, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford on his amendment. In its basic decency it has unmasked a fundamental illiberalism at the heart of the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
Many of the arrangements are contractual, so removing them would cost the employer a significant amount, estimated to be around £6 million.
Kevin Brennan
So much for the party of business, imposing costs on businesses that have entered into voluntary agreements.
I hope the hon. Member for Stafford will seek to divide the House on his amendment, which is thoughtful and moderate, rather like the hon. Gentleman himself.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Trade Union Bill was my first experience of sitting on a Public Bill Committee. Our sessions were lively and often educational, like the previous speech. The bit about St Thomas Aquinas was greatly enjoyed in all parts of the House.
As a former public sector worker myself for 17 years, I know what it is like to cross a picket line. I enjoyed questioning union greats, including Len McCluskey. Today those on the Conservative Benches have been called Dickensian, Stalinist and draconian, but many of us firmly believe that trade unions are valuable institutions in British society. It is vital that they represent accurately the views of their members. This Bill aims to ensure that hard-working people are not disrupted by under-supported strike action, but it is the human rights considerations that run through the Bill that have been of particular interest to me.
The rights of workers to make their voices heard are, of course, important, and striking is an important last resort. We recognise that it is part of the armoury of trade union law. Article 11 of the European convention on human rights provides to everyone
“the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests”.
It is, however, important to recognise that article 11 is a qualified right.
Ian Lavery
Is the hon. Lady aware of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Ministers only days ago—it was sneaked out—on the change to the ministerial code, informing Ministers that they can now ignore international law? Does that have anything to do with this issue?
Victoria Prentis
I am not aware of that letter, although I am aware that there is a debate on the issue. I am talking about the European convention on human rights. There is no proposal from the Government to renege on that at any time in the future, as far as I am aware.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The hon. Lady talks a great deal about human rights and the European convention. Can she help me by telling me where article 11 talks about armbands and letters of authority?
Victoria Prentis
I would like, with your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker, to finish my point and come on to armbands later.
Article 11 allows for proportionate restrictions on the exercise of—[Interruption.] I am referring to article 11(2), which states:
“No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly acknowledged, as recently as last year, that it is legitimate under article 11 for the Government to legislate to impose conditions on the right to strike where there is evidence that that is justified.
The Court has also acknowledged that the Government have a wide margin of appreciation in deciding how to legislate. Clause 9, as we have heard, introduces a set of requirements on the supervision of picketing, following some sensible concessions that were made by the Minister following the consultation period. The picket supervisor will have to wear a badge, armband or other item to ensure that they are easy to identify. This is hardly onerous.
Jo Stevens
The hon. Lady referred to article 11(2), which sets out the circumstances in which the right of freedom of association can be interfered with, including the protection of national security and the prevention of serious crime. All we have heard Conservative Members talk about is the “temporary inconvenience” that strikes cause. I am afraid that that is not listed in article 11(2).
Victoria Prentis
I do not believe that the wearing of a badge or armband, or some other means of identification, is onerous in the way that the hon. Lady suggests. In fact, it is something that unions widely do already as part of the code on picketing, which actually says that everybody should wear an armband.
I must admit that in Committee I was somewhat bemused by this part of the argument and the briefs provided by Amnesty International and Liberty in the evidence that was given. Both are excellent human rights organisations that undertake extremely important work around the world dealing with executions and torture, yet the wearing of an armband by one person so that they are identifiable during a strike presents them with a big issue. I do not agree. We are not asking everybody taking part in a strike to wear an armband, but simply asking the organiser of a particular event to do so in order to identify themselves.
Victoria Prentis
I am going to finish, if I may.
This seems to be an entirely reasonable and, more importantly, proportionate measure. There is a clear public interest in ensuring that trade unions take responsibility for the conduct of the pickets that they organise. It is only fair that the rights of those who belong to unions are balanced with the rights of hard-working taxpayers, including those in my constituency, who rely on key public services.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I must declare an interest as a member of Unite the union and a proud union representative for 14 years.
Our proposals in new clauses 1, 3 and 4 and amendments 27, 28, 37, 25, 26, 24, 23, 11, 12, 13, 36 and 35 cover a variety of areas in the Bill that pose particular difficulties for public sector workers, focusing on agency workers and political funds. New clause 1 attempts to retain within primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Legislation banning the use of agency workers to break strikes has been in place in the UK since 1973. That position is in line with the majority of other European countries, which also prohibit or severely restrict the use of agency workers during industrial disputes. Removing that ban would be regressive and it would have significant implications for all workers.
Public opinion polls also indicate that such changes are not supported by the majority of the general public. The SNP therefore supports new clause 1, which aims to retain in primary legislation the ban on the supply of agency workers during strikes. Although the Bill does not specifically include provisions for that measure to be repealed, the Government have been consulting on draft legislation that would allow that to happen. Adopting our proposal would therefore be a failsafe against that occurring in future.
Chris Stephens
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that the current penalty for an employer who hires agency workers to break strikes is very weak indeed? We need primary legislation to stop that practice.
Dr Cameron
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also extremely important with regard to safety, including that of the public, which I will come on to discuss.
Repealing the existing prohibition on hiring agency staff to replace workers participating in industrial action fundamentally undermines the right to strike. It reduces the impact of strike action and upsets the power balance between workers and employers. It has also been argued that it is relatively ineffective with regard to dispute resolution, as it serves only to prolong the dispute, delay resolution and embitter industrial relations.
At a time when we are trying to encourage the living wage, the measure is also likely to drag down pay and working conditions for workers right across the country. It could have adverse implications for the agency workers themselves, as it would place them in a stressful environment.
Introducing inexperienced workers to take on the role of the permanent workforce in a workplace with which they are not familiar also has significant implications for health and safety and for the quality of services. That will impact both on those workers and on the public at large, who may utilise those services.
Those matters appear to be of particular concern to the public. A recent YouGov poll found that 65% of those surveyed were against bringing in temporary agency workers to break public sector strikes, and more than half said they thought it would worsen services and have a negative impact on safety. Only 8% indicated that they believe that hiring agency workers during strikes would improve services.
Unlike the UK Government, the SNP believes in a modern and progressive approach to industrial relations and to trade unionism, which is at the very heart of being able to achieve fair work. We recognise that no one wants strikes, but the way to avoid them is not to promote confrontation by legislating them out of existence. The right way is to pursue a relationship, in partnership with both workers and employers, based on respect and co-operation.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Would it not be better for this Government to value the work of our public sector workers in particular, rather than to undermine the role they play by bringing in agency workers to break strikes?
Dr Cameron
I agree with my hon. Friend. Workers who feel valued are much more likely to increase productivity and boost the economy.
New clause 3 would provide that, before the Government could introduce a Bill that would affect trade union political funds, they must first publish a statement specifying whether the Bill was being introduced with or without the agreement of all political parties represented in the House of Commons. The aim is to encourage the Government to seek political consensus with other political parties before introducing legislation that interferes with the ability of unions to engage politically.
Unions that wish to contribute to political parties or to engage in certain political activities, as defined by section 72 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, must establish a political fund. Before doing that, unions are legally required to ballot their members on whether they agree to the union maintaining a political fund through a political fund resolution.
Clause 10 will restrict unions’ right to freedom of association and their ability to engage in political debates. The provisions will place huge administrative burdens on unions, and may reduce the level of contributions raised, as has been the case in Northern Ireland. Currently, union members have the right to opt out of their subscriptions being used for political fund purposes, and they are not required to renew their opt-in. The proposals in clause 10 exceed the duties that apply to companies when making political donations. It is widely known that opt-in processes reduce participation. Amendment 27 seeks to remove clause 10 from the Bill completely, as it will undermine unions’ freedom of association.
Tom Blenkinsop
Depending on the union, unions can have several political funds. For example, Unison does, which goes back to agreements made when the National Union of Public Employees and the National and Local Government Officers Association amalgamated.
Tom Blenkinsop
They amalgamated with the Confederation of Health Service Employees, as my hon. Friend says. The legislation does not recognise internal agreements that have been reached over decades.
Dr Cameron
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I would add that we heard testimony from witnesses in the Public Bill Committee on the very good work that unions contribute in terms of political donations to campaigns.
Amendments 11 to 13 to clause 13 attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. The cap on facility time will reduce the capacity of trade unions to represent their members and resolve disputes in the workplace before they escalate. According to the TUC, there is a risk that the proposal for a cap could conflict with EU law protecting the rights of health and safety reps to have paid time off for their duties and training; the rights of union representatives to have paid time off and office facilities during consultations on collective redundancies and outsourcing; TUPE rights; and even rights under general information and consultation arrangements covered by the information and consultation of employees regulations.
Amendments 35 and 36 also attempt to limit the ability of Ministers to use their powers under the Bill where such powers are in breach of treaty obligations by stating that the powers cannot be used unless they are “compatible with treaty obligations” arising from the Council of Europe and the ILO. Clause 14 will prevent all public sector employees from deducting union subscriptions via payroll. That will make it harder for individuals, including lower-paid workers, to access union representation in the workplace. The TUC is concerned that clause 14 will apply only to trade unions, not to staff associations. That suggests that the Government want to make it harder for people to join trade unions and to access the benefits of trade union membership, including effective representation in the workplace and specialist advice on employment rights, health and safety, and other work-related issues.
Under clause 14, the Government will be able to introduce regulations imposing a ban on check-off arrangements across the entire public sector. In particular, the plans to impose changes to collective agreements voluntarily made by employers and unions do not comply with ILO standards. Minister Roseanna Cunningham made it clear during the evidence sessions that the Scottish Government do not support the proposed ban on check-off arrangements. In recent weeks, more than 50 local authorities, NHS employers and employer organisations have criticised the Government’s plans to ban check-off arrangements in the public sector.
The Government claim that the proposal will save taxpayers up to £6 million. However, many unions already cover the cost of check-off services, as has been said. In some cases, fees charged by public sector employers for check-off provision generate a net gain. Another great concern that was raised in Committee was that legal challenges to the Government could cost the public purse.
Amendment 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), provides that the ban on check-off arrangements would not apply to public sector workplaces where the employer and the relevant unions had an agreement. We support that amendment.
In conclusion, this debate is about people, their lives, their pay, their conditions and their safety in their workplace. It deserves to be paid the utmost respect by Members in all parts of the Chamber.
Ian Lavery
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to place it on the record that I am a member of Unite the union and the National Union of Mineworkers.
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It falls to each Member to declare his or her interests as they see fit. We are deeply obliged to him.
Jeremy Lefroy
I rise to speak to amendment 5, which appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I do so with a heavy heart, because clause 14, to which the amendment relates, is entitled, “Prohibition on deduction of union subscriptions from wages in public sector”. As a Conservative, I am not greatly in favour of prohibition in many instances and I certainly am not in this instance. The clause was not in the Bill on Second Reading so we did not debate it and I am disappointed that it has been brought forward. Because it has been brought forward, I will speak to my amendment.
When we introduce a prohibition, we must ask what the penalties will be. If a union and an employer decide that this kind of arrangement is so important and so difficult to unwind that they will continue using it, what will happen to them? Will the police be involved? Will the employer and the union be fined? If there is a prohibition, there must be some way of enforcing it. There is no sensible way of enforcing this kind of prohibition on what is a relatively sensible arrangement between an employer and a union.
Let us be clear that we are talking about an agreement between an employer and a union, not something that is imposed on either of them. It is a partnership. In my view, it is generally a positive one as it enables people to work together. Surely that is what all of us are here to encourage. Nobody is required to have such an arrangement.
If my amendment were accepted by the Government at some point, it would require the cost to be reimbursed, as it is in many arrangements up and down the country, including in my county of Staffordshire, where there is a perfectly good arrangement between Unison and Staffordshire County Council.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I support amendment 5 because it is my understanding that local authorities and other such organisations would be able to charge a commercial rate to recover the costs.
Jeremy Lefroy
Yes, and they do. As I mentioned in an intervention on the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), some councils make a surplus from it that goes towards their services.
As has been pointed out, clause 14 singles out union subscriptions. There is no prohibition on other deductions for which there might not be compensation to the employer, such as deductions for season tickets, which have been mentioned, or professional fees. Even on my payslip as a Member of Parliament, the top deduction every month is £2 for the Members fund. There will be no prohibition on that deduction, unless the Members fund is a national union of Members of Parliament, which I do not think it is.
Other people have made the case much more eloquently than I have, so I will not detain the House any longer on this point.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes a convincing and measured case, and I have looked closely at the wording of his amendment and think it very reasonable. Given what he has just said, if the Government are unwilling to accept this reasoned amendment, does he think that we should test the view of the House on it this evening?
Jeremy Lefroy
I will wait to hear what the Minister says. He is an extremely reasonable person and there are other ways in which such things can happen. I encourage the Government to accept the amendment because I do not want to see this clause unamended in an Act of Parliament signed by Her Majesty.
Let me quote someone I greatly admire:
“In most parts of the world the suggestion that someone might be both conservative and liberal would be viewed as absurd…In the UK there is no finer tradition, no more established custom and no stronger institution than that of freedom under the law…That’s why in Anglo-Saxon countries conservatism is freedom’s doughtiest defender and why the advance of freedom gives conservatism its moral purpose.”
Those are the words of the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), and I entirely agree with him.
Catherine West
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are echoes in that speech of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, in which charities were almost proscribed for doing what they believed was right? There are also echoes from the attempts to change or alter the Human Rights Act 1998—it feels as if there is a creepy sense of authoritarianism, which I do not think Members in this place agree with.
Jeremy Lefroy
I respect the hon. Lady but I do not entirely agree with her. I would be interested to see whether the chilling effects that people so often claimed the 2014 Act would have on the 2015 general election campaign actually took place—indeed, we should have a review of that Act as it is important. I have made clear my views on the Human Rights Act: I believe that we should remain signatories to the European convention on human rights, and I hold to that. We look forward to seeing what the Government bring forward. I urge the Government, and especially the Minister whom I greatly admire, to have another look at the Bill, and to come forward with proposals that allow people who want to work together in this sort of format, and who are paying the right costs, to do so.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a proud member of Community union. I represent the south Wales constituency of Aberavon which is steeped in the history of the trade union movement—Members will imagine the strength of feeling and amount of correspondence that I have received in opposition to this unjust and vindictive Bill. We now need a cultural change in Britain’s industrial relations, and a move away from the Punch and Judy style that has evolved thanks to legislation such as this Bill. There is an urgent need to move towards more collective bargaining across the economy, as that would have a direct and positive impact on productivity—something that the Government claim they are campaigning for passionately. Regrettably, the Bill will neither change the culture nor increase productivity. Instead, it will lead to an entrenching of the “them versus us” culture that is bad for workers, employers, customers, business, and the public at large.
Let me draw the House’s attention to the sections in the Bill that deal with picketing. Conservative Members have failed completely to demonstrate why the picketing provisions in this Bill are necessary or justified. The Government’s regulatory policy committee concluded that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills impact assessment on picketing restrictions was not fit for purpose, and that no full impact assessment of the Bill has been published.
Under these new provisions, trade union pickets will be subject to levels of police scrutiny and control that go far beyond what is fair or necessary. Most importantly, the changes in the Bill will also be a waste of police time. That issue was raised by the National Police Chiefs Council and the Police Federation in oral evidence to the Bill Committee. Steve White from the Police Federation said:
“We are finding it extremely challenging to cope with day-to-day policing with the current resource levels, and the likelihood is that they are going to become squeezed even more. If there is an increased requirement for police involvement around the policing of industrial disputes, that would be more challenging.”
I understand that Conservative Members are friends and supporters of the police, so I hope they will listen carefully to that.
Imran Hussain
When senior police officers are warning that neighbourhood policing is under threat, is it right that we should use police resources to further restrict the civil liberties of trade union members?
Stephen Kinnock
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We hear a lot from Conservative Members about smart government and deploying resources according to priorities. Does any hon. Member honestly believe that using police resources on this matter would be a good use of already stretched resources? I think not.
The digital age has brought a revolution in the world of work. That has thrown up several questions, but also offers employers, trade unions and Government alike a once in a generation opportunity to work in partnership—a chance to shape a framework that provides the blend of flexibility and security that this new reality requires. If all parties were to seize that opportunity, we could potentially see the green shoots of a 21st century industrial relations culture that would, in turn, enable the development of a labour market that is fit for purpose and resilient in this new age. Let us not waste that opportunity with an adversarial and counterproductive Bill such as this.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I would say to him that I wish to call the Minister at, or close, to 5.50 pm, so he has three or, at most, four minutes.
Mr Djanogly
Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker.
Given the Opposition’s comments at various stages of the Bill, I am surprised that only the SNP—in new clause 4—has suggested amendment of the role of certification officer. As a shadow BIS Minister some years ago, I visited the certification officer, and everything I saw there shouted that it was a weak, toothless regulator crying out for reform. I wholly support the Government’s attempts to do so.
As for new clause 4, I do not support the idea that the certification officer should have to have expertise in trade union law, although obviously some members of his staff will need to be experts, as much as others will need general legal or accounting skills. It is also somewhat ironic to hear that specific legal qualifications should be required when we know that the last Labour Government specifically excluded unions from regulation under the Legal Services Act 2007. The requirement in new clause 4 for a certification officer for Scotland may fulfil the SNP’s political mandate, but it would be unhelpful for Scottish and other British businesses which want to see a single regulator dealing with unions equally.
Given the wide political and practical debates involved in the unions’ political funds, it is surprising that it has been left to the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) to initiate a debate on this important issue through amendment 1. To set up a political fund, trade unions must first ballot their members to adopt political objects as a union objective. Trade unions can then support political objects only with money from their political funds. The funds may also be spent on union objectives that are not political. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill includes an opt-in provision.
On a connected issue, will the Minister confirm that I am right in thinking that failing to opt into the levy will not necessarily mean that a union member’s overall contribution will be reduced by the amount of the political contribution? If so, should we not consider doing that? Furthermore, given that statute dictates that companies require an annual vote on political donations, why should not the political levy be voted on annually by trade union members? Perhaps that could be addressed as the Bill makes progress.
Mr Speaker
To wind up the debate I call the Minister, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.
Nick Boles
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support Government amendments 2, 3 and 4, and to resist Opposition amendments and new clauses.
The Government recognise picketing as a lawful activity when it is conducted in a peaceful way. We believe that when some people exercise their right to freedom of expression, it should not impact on others’ right to disagree with that view. The main requirement set out in the Bill is a statutory duty for the union to supervise picketing, in particular by appointing a picket supervisor. The picket supervisor must either attend the picket line or be readily contactable by the union and the police, and be able to attend at short notice to ensure that picketing is lawful. As you may recall, Mr Speaker, none of the measures in clause 9 is new. They reflect key aspects of the picketing code, which has been in existence since 1992; most unions have been very happy to comply with it in almost all cases. We have had no suggestions for its amendment from the Opposition, including in their 13 years in government.
Government amendment 2 deals with the requirement in clause 9 for the union to issue a letter of authorisation. I have listened very carefully to the different views expressed on this requirement. It is clear that there has been some confusion about the purpose of the letter of authorisation, its content with regard to the picket supervisor, and the entitlement to be shown it. I would like to state for the record that there was never any intention of having the personal details of the picket supervisor set out in the letter of authorisation, but given that there continues to be uncertainty about how the requirement will work in practice, we are clarifying that the purpose of the letter is to record the union’s approval of a picket related to a particular dispute.
I took on board the concerns expressed about the entitlement to see the letter, and said that I would return to this matter on Report. I assure the House that I take matters relating to data protection very seriously, and do not want to create any room for misconceived entitlement or concern about misuse of personal information. That is why we are making it clear that the entitlement to see the letter of authorisation is restricted to the employer at whose workplace picketing is taking place, or the employer’s agent. To remove any scope for the misunderstanding that the picket supervisor is required to supply their name during picketing, we have removed the reference to the constable from the clause. The police will already have been informed of the picket supervisor’s contact details following the picket supervisor’s appointment.
We have built in important flexibility; for example, the requirement should be to show the letter as soon as is reasonably practicable, to enable the picket supervisor to be at another picket line related to the trade dispute. The measures also help the employer by allowing them to ask their human resources manager or solicitor to act on their behalf. I comment the amendment to the House.
On agency workers, I simply say that new clause 1 seeks to pre-empt the Government’s response to the consultation on agency workers. The Government consultation closed in September; we are analysing responses. We will publish a response in due course, and I resist any amendment that seeks to pre-empt it.
On political funding, the Conservative manifesto on which we stood for election in May said that a future Conservative Government would ensure that trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions. The public rightly expect us to deliver on these promises. It would be wrong, given our mandate, for us to engage in discussions behind closed doors and agree some kind of compromise that was then presented to the public and Parliament as a done deal. Many Opposition Members believe that this change will see political funding fall for certain political parties. That betrays an extraordinary lack of self-confidence in their ability to persuade union members of the merits of supporting their party. On that basis, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Will the Minister do the same with the shareholders of companies that give money to the Tory party?
Nick Boles
I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I will give the hon. Gentleman another go, because I had another message in another ear.
Mr Campbell
Will the Minister give that opportunity to shareholders in big companies that give money to the Tory party?
Nick Boles
As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, any donations by public companies have to receive the approval of shareholders and are subject to the same declaration, at the exact same level, as we are proposing for trade unions, so when it comes to transparency and voting, things are equally clear.
I want to turn at some length to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and his arguments in support of his amendment 5. All Members will have heard a sincere and principled man making a sincere and principled argument. I say that not because he was so kind as to quote, rather awkwardly, a speech I made in a moment of delusion, but because I genuinely believe he seeks the best for the British people, British business and trade unions. I correct him on one point of fact, however: while some trade unions compensate employers for check-off arrangements, our understanding is that this relates to only 22% of check-off arrangements in the public sector.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that the general secretary of Unison—the largest trade union in the public sector—offered in Committee to reimburse employers for any check-off costs they incur?
Nick Boles
I am aware of that, because I was in the Committee, and the general secretary of Unison is an unforgettable man, and no one forgets when he makes them an offer. However, the purpose of the Government’s measure is not suddenly to undermine the representation of unions in the public sector—that is not what has happened in the civil service, where check-off has been removed—but to create a direct relationship between members and their trade unions by enabling them to make an active choice about which union will best represent them. We have heard from other unions that this has enabled them to compete for the membership of some in the civil service, and to form a more direct relationship with their members.
Jeremy Lefroy
I fully understand the Minister’s point, but in that case, why not let them choose whether to do this?
Nick Boles
I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but of course the choice would be made by the employer and the union, not the individual members. I have not yet been persuaded by his arguments, and will resist his amendment, if he pushes it, but I hope I can reassure him that we absolutely do not intend the measure to be a way of making life difficult for unions or of reducing their membership. We will double the time trade unions have to transfer members from the existing check-off arrangement to the new direct debit arrangement from six months to one year. That will not satisfy him and those who support his amendment, but I hope that it will at least reassure him that we do not intend this to be a way of making life difficult for unions. If there is anything further we can do on that point, I am happy to have further discussions with him.
On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will be persuaded not to press his amendment. We will talk about this more. I hope that I have reassured him that trade unions will have time to form the direct relationship with their members that the Bill seeks to provide.
Kevin Brennan
I just wish to confirm that we wish to push amendment 6 to a vote.
Mr Speaker
I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I had rather anticipated that.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication of whether there will be a written or oral statement by any Minister, given the statement today from the chief executive of Tata Steel Europe reported in The Economic Times in India that the long products division within Tata will have no future within Tata beyond this financial year? This includes the beam mill at Redcar, Skinningrove special profiles in my constituency, and Scunthorpe long products site.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that I have had no such indication, but he has placed those serious matters on the record and I imagine that he will return to them when the House returns.
Third Reading
Nick Boles
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I start by thanking all Members who have taken part in our deliberations on this important Bill. We had a robust debate on Second Reading, and a lively and passionate debate continued in Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who led for the Labour Opposition, and the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) who led for the SNP. They kept me on my toes throughout, and I have to admit that on occasion their fancy footwork pushed me uncomfortably close to the ropes. It is only because of the superb support of officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the unfailing vigilance of my hon. Friend the Whip, and my PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), and the stalwart resolve of hon. Friends on the Committee that we were able to resist their forensic fusilade.
This Bill seeks to do two things—to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members, and to redress the balance between the rights of trade unions and the rights of the general public, whose lives are often disrupted by strikes. We have brought it forward as a party that believes in trade unions, that is proud to win the support of many trade union members at elections, and that wants trade unions to carry on doing the excellent work they do to encourage workplace learning and resolve disputes at work.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you are as assiduous a reader of the ConservativeHome website as I am, but today the leader of the Scottish Conservative party published a superb piece about the importance of trade unions and hailed the launch of the Conservative Trade Unionists group by the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
The measures in this Bill are rooted in the manifesto, on the basis of which we won a majority of the seats in the House of Commons at the election in May. They are supported by members of the public whose interests as parents, as patients and as commuters we were elected to defend. The measures have secured clear majorities on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and I hope they will secure a similarly clear majority on Third Reading.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Is it not important to ensure that the Bill is properly targeted and looks to where there is genuine support for changes, not least in relation to the removal of check-off? May I invite the Minister, as the Bill proceeds to the other place, to reflect on the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in speaking to amendment 5, with the recognition that there should be an agreement to compensate taxpayers for the financial burden, and the proposal for an agreement? It is important that we properly reflect on these arguments to ensure that we have this targeted approach to dealing with issues of trade unionism in the right way.
Nick Boles
I have already told my hon. Friend that I am happy to carry on talking to him about this as the Bill proceeds through the other place, and if he would like to join these discussions, I would be absolutely delighted.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Will the Conservative Trade Unionists group, which the Minister mentioned, be able to join online, or, given the dodginess of the internet, will they have to wait five or 10 years for that?
Nick Boles
I am tempted to say that they will have to buy a small donkey and write it on the side, but no, of course they will be able to join through the usual routes.
I look forward to engaging with Members of the upper House, alongside my noble Friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe, and we will listen carefully to any concerns they may have. I hope that I have demonstrated through amendments to the provisions on the picketing supervisor and the letter of authorisation that the Government are willing to hear persuasive arguments and to respond. In turn, I trust that noble Lords and Baronesses will respect the clearly expressed will of the British people, which is established not by retweets or by protests in Parliament Square but through the votes of their elected representatives sitting here in the House of Commons.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
As I did on Second Reading, let me begin by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declaring that I am a lifelong and proud trade unionist.
I believe that our country succeeds when government, employers and employees work in partnership to tackle our economic and social challenges. Evidence shows that good industrial relations are more likely to lead to increased productivity, higher skills, and greater safety in the workplace, so any Government who were serious about economic progress and wellbeing would be working to improve industrial relations, but this Bill demonstrates that we have a Tory Government hellbent on doing the exact opposite.
On Second Reading, I called the Bill “draconian, vindictive and counterproductive”, and during its passage through Parliament, this Government’s malign intent has been proved again and again. This Bill will do absolutely nothing to improve industrial relations in our country; in fact, it risks making them worse. It will do nothing to help build the modern economy we all want to see; in fact, it is an outdated response to the problems of decades past. It is bad for workers and bad for business.
What is it about this Conservative Government that they are so afraid of checks and balances on their power, including challenges from free trade unions and unshackled civil society? This Government are pursuing a very deliberate strategy to legislate their critics into silence or submission, whether through the gagging Act or the war being waged by those on the Tory Benches on the charities that dare to have an opinion contrary to the Government’s. They are attacking the Human Rights Act 1998, targeting the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and issuing threats against the House of Lords for daring to ask them to think again on tax credits. This Government increasingly like to use the law to clamp down on dissent. Now the Conservatives have the trade unions in their sights again.
In Committee, the Government gave no adequate justification for the many draconian measures in this Bill, and no evidence was provided to justify them. The sweeping changes to the opt-in for political funds go well beyond the current practices in Northern Ireland which have been used to justify the change. They are a nakedly partisan attack on Her Majesty’s Opposition. If enacted, these proposals would mark the abrupt end of the Churchill convention and of the long-standing consensus in British politics that the Government of the day should not introduce partisan legislation unfairly to disadvantage their political rivals. This is an abuse, and they know it.
The Bill does nothing to deal with the issue of big money in politics and it leaves Tory funding sources completely untouched, while all the while forcing through changes that threaten the very existence of all political activity and campaigning by trade unions, most of which is entirely unrelated to the Labour party, and which, by the way, is already heavily regulated.
In a healthy democracy, governing should be uncomfortable. Governments should be subject to real challenge. The Government should not use legislative means to shut down debate or dissent, as this Government are now doing. That is why Liberty, Amnesty International and the British Institute of Human Rights have opposed the Bill on the grounds of civil liberties. It breaches the international standards of the International Labour Organisation and the European convention on human rights.
The Bill gives an inadequate transitional period of just three months to re-recruit the 4.9 million current members of trade union political funds, which this Bill would arbitrarily and retrospectively set at zero. It deliberately allows insufficient time for trade unions to change their own rule books to accommodate that sudden, draconian legislative requirement.
The intrusive new investigatory powers for the certification officer make him the judge, jury and executioner on complaints, which flies in the face of the principles of natural justice.
The provisions on picketing were described by the Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee as “Not fit for purpose”. The very minor concessions, which were made after Opposition pressure in Committee, do not go nearly far enough.
This Bill just does not fit with modern Britain. It acts as though devolution to our nations and regions never happened, with the Government seeking to ride roughshod over both check-off and facility agreements freely made between employer and employee in the devolved authorities and in English local government. If those agreements work well and facilitate good industrial relations, why do the Government wish to destroy them by central diktat? The obvious conclusion is that this Government want to destroy trade union finances and organisation and to effectively legislate trade unions out of existence.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, Labour has pushed for the introduction of e-balloting and secure workplace balloting, which are already used for a variety of purposes in both the public and the private sectors, including, of course, to choose the Tory mayoral candidate for London. I can think of no organisations besides trade unions where technological change and progress are not only discouraged by the Government, but actually banned by proscriptive legislation. There are no reasonable grounds for the Government’s continued refusal to countenance that wholly sensible change. Trade unions must be allowed to modernise and bring balloting into the 21st century, and I very much hope that my noble Friends in the other place will pick up on that.
We know that trade unions have a vital role to play in a modern economy where business, employees and Government work together for the mutual benefit of our country. It is time that the Government treated trade unions as an equal in that partnership and not as the enemy within.
The Bill is divisive and undermines the basic protections that trade unions provide for people at work. It is poorly drafted, legally unsound and in conflict with international obligations, and it undermines the devolution settlement. It does nothing to tackle the pressing national challenges our public services, businesses and industries alike are facing; instead, it tries to drive a false wedge between Government, industry, employees and the public.
Stopping this Bill requires a UK-wide and united response. I urge Members on both sides of the House to join Labour in the Division Lobby to oppose this nasty, vindictive Bill in its entirety.
Chris Stephens
Today we have heard, once again, divisive rhetoric against this country’s trade union movement. We have heard from some Government Back Benchers that trade unionists who are on strike get paid by their employer. That will be news to the millions of trade union members in this country. The real difficulty with and objection to some of the rhetoric we hear is the suggestion that trade union members are somehow different from taxpayers and the public. Trade union members are taxpayers and they are members of the general public.
The Bill infringes human rights and civil liberties, and if unaltered, it can only lead to more work for the courts and, sadly, more blacklisting for trade union members in this country. The Bill attacks the ability of trade unions to organise, as we have seen with the proposals on facility time and check-off. This is not just about party political funding; it is an attack on the trade union movement’s ability to fund general campaigns, such as anti-racist campaigns and campaigns in favour of public services.
It is quite astonishing that the Government believe that aspects of the Bill do not require a legislative consent motion, either from the Scottish Parliament or from the Welsh Assembly, on public services across the board. I predict that that will come back to bite them.
The Minister for Skills was very kind in his words to me, so I will reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron): he gives the appearance of moderation, but his rhetoric is entirely disingenuous.
David Rutley
It is an honour to speak on Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Skills on his hard work. He has worked tirelessly on this very important Bill, which is vital in terms of accountability and transparency.
Like many Members of the House, I was fortunate enough last week to meet a delegation from Macclesfield of good, hard-working union members. They are very sincere in their support of their fellow union members. They rightly pointed out that unions do a lot of work to support members and others in the workplace. However, not all union leaders share those motives and some strikes can cause major disruption, so the Bill is important. I stress again that its importance is in terms of accountability and transparency. Who should be fearful of those principles in relation to the practices in the Bill?
The Bill will ensure that union members have the right to better information about any industrial action a union proposes to take. It ensures that union members have the right to be consulted in another ballot, so that saying yes to action in the winter does not necessarily still mean yes the following summer. The union will have to ask members if they want to opt in to political levies, and then ask them again if they want to be opted in some five years later. These are reasonable proposals and reasonable policies.
This is a profound and timely shift of power in favour of the public and of the grassroots in the union movement—Conservative democracy and accountability in action once again. We Conservatives have a democratic mandate to introduce the reforms. We are accountable to the electorate for following through on our manifesto commitments. Union leaders must now be held to a higher level of accountability when planning action that could lead to serious disruption to important public services.
It is only right that ballots for industrial action should need to reach certain thresholds of support among union members, particularly when such action relates to public services. It is right that the fear of intimidation at the picket line should be removed, which will protect the public and their services from any excessive zeal by an unrepresentative minority within the union movement. If such people are not unrepresentative, why do they fear the threshold? This is about accountability to union members and to the British public.
Of course, the hard left has always had a foothold in the Labour party, and now it has the whip hand. That far-left whip hand, Labour’s new leadership, has been busy building up momentum behind its agenda. That is Momentum with a capital M by the way: Momentum for real change—on the Labour Benches, that is—is a movement inspired by militant trade unionists who want to do to the country what they now have the momentum to do in the Labour party.
I talked earlier about how the shadow Chancellor wants to encourage more militant approaches and no doubt wants to inspire militant trade unionism. Conservative Members have been hearing that, and we have to finish the job of trade union reform that we started in the 1980s and carried on in the 1990s because there are leading Labour Members who saw the industrial strife of the 1970s and 1980s as a dry run for where they want to go next. They will not protect the regular members of trade unions and the public, but Conservative Members will, and that is why I support the Bill.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
My dad came here as a navvy from County Cork, joined the British Army to fight Hitler and then became a train driver. Like generations before him and generations after him, he wanted to get on.
The evidence is absolutely clear that those who are in a trade union are more likely to be better paid and to enjoy equal pay, less likely to be unfairly dismissed, bullied or discriminated against, and more likely to work in a safe workplace and to enjoy a decent pension.
I have worked for 40 years in the trade union movement with good employers, including those in the automotive industry such as Jaguar Land Rover, who praise their trade unions for the transformation of the industry to a high-pay, high-quality, high-productivity culture. I have also fought the bad. My whole experience is that trade unions are a force for good and for liberty.
Now, the so-called party of working people wants to weaken working people. It is part of a wider agenda that will brook no opposition: first the charities, then the BBC, even the House of Lords and now the trade unions. The Tory party wants a one party, one nation state.
The great Jack Jones once said that the way for working people to access power was through their union card on the one hand and their right to vote for the Labour party on the other.
Let me show what is so obnoxious about this Bill. When I was treasurer of the Labour party in 2006, against the background of the secret loans scandal and the Hayden Phillips process, it was put to me, “Jack, if we impose a cap on donations of £5,000, it will bankrupt the Tory party.” I said no to doing that because it would be immoral for one party to abuse its power to bankrupt another party. Would that the Conservative party had the same moral compass now.
In conclusion, this is a pernicious and iniquitous Bill. It is born out of malice, informed by prejudice and has no place in a democracy. That is why the true party of working people, the Labour party, will vote against it tonight.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
delegated legislation
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European Union documents
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Funding Formula for Leicestershire Constabulary
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I wish to present a petition on the funding formula for Leicestershire constabulary, which was collected over the past 10 days. Of course, that was prior to the Government’s decision, because of the problems we heard about in the urgent question on Monday, to pause the formula to allow local constabularies to make fresh representations. Happily, that is exactly what the Government decided to do on Monday, so I present the petition in celebration: the results of the petition have already been accepted and there will be a further review.
I thank the 216 people who signed the petition, which was collected by volunteers in the north Leicester area: Sanjeev Sharma, Baljeet Singh and Pradeep Dullabh. I also thank Councillors Mo Chohan, Manjula Sood, Ross Willmott and Rita Patel for their support.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Leicester East,
Declares that current proposals to change Leicestershire’s policing budget through the revision of the funding formula as well as other cuts could jeopardise the safety of thousands of residents; further that this will result in an unacceptable loss of £700,000 from the force’s budget; and further that the proposals will lead to fewer officers keeping Leicester safe and give a green light to criminals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to immediately review the proposed funding formula for Leicestershire Constabulary.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P001553]
Hedgehog Conservation
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me an Adjournment debate on hedgehog habitats and the need to protect the species. Before I go any further, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I still retain an interest in a small public relations company that gives advice to developers, although I am not sure they will want to talk to me after this. I thank the British Hedgehog Preservation Society and the People’s Trust for Endangered Species, and especially Henry Johnson, who has spoken to me about the importance of hedgehog conservation.
An article in The Guardian in July 2013 pointed out that hedgehogs are prickly in character, have a voracious appetite and a passion for gardens, and have a noisy sex life. I leave it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to decide which of those traits I share. In a BBC wildlife poll, hedgehogs were chosen as the best natural emblem for the British nation, beating the charismatic badger and the sturdy oak. The victory for the ultimate underdog came about with 42% and more than 9,000 votes cast for the hedgehog. I know what it is like to be an underdog, because that is how I felt in the run-up to the last general election, when I placed a bet on myself with Paddy Power at 4:1 against.
In short, the British people have taken hedgehogs to their hearts. Even though we are a nation of animal lovers and have played a key role in the emergence of the modern conservation movement in the western world, Britain does not have a designated national species, unlike many other countries, including Russia, Australia and South Africa. That is why I am calling on my hon. Friend the Minister to hold a national campaign to identify which animal should be our designated national species. Needless to say, I will be launching a petition after this debate to name the hedgehog as our designated national species.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman set the scene for us, but there are more than 100 priority species across the UK, many of which reside within my constituency. Does he agree we need a strategy for all those species, including the hedgehog?
Oliver Colvile
Yes, I am happy to agree, but I am talking about, and campaigning for, the hedgehog.
Perhaps the BBC might like to run a competition similar to one to find the greatest Briton, with a series of people arguing the case for their preferred animal over a series of weeks. I would be willing to do the job on behalf of the hedgehog.
Martin John Docherty (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that hedgehogs are a devolved issue to be decided on by the Scottish Government?
Oliver Colvile
I am told that in the western isles, there are no hedgehogs at all.
My relationship with the hedgehog goes back to my own childhood in suburban Woking, when I was read by my actress mother Beatrix Potter’s “The Tale of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle”—hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that this is not the only Mrs T who has been important in my life. I was therefore deeply shocked to discover that in the last 10 years, hedgehog numbers have declined by about one third nationally. According to the House of Commons Library, the principal reason for this prickly animal’s decline is the loss of habitats. Likely factors in the hedgehog’s demise are the loss of permanent grasslands, larger field sizes, the use of pesticides and herbicides and a reduction in hedgerow quality. I understand that badgers are a natural predator of hedgehogs and that consequently they avoid sites where badgers are present.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of using our gardens as a vital habitat for hedgehogs? I recently built a hedgehog house in my garden. Sadly, as yet I have no residents in it, but I hope it will encourage diversity and a growth in hedgehog numbers in South Staffordshire.
Oliver Colvile
I will be making a similar point in a moment.
Hedgehogs seem to thrive in urban and suburban areas, but the move to tidy, sterile gardens—I am sure the garden of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) is not sterile—has also contributed to their demise. However, these suburban habitats are broken up by fences and roads, pushing hedgehogs into unsuitably small areas.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Another fascinating fact about hedgehogs, which my hon. Friend might be aware of, is that they run up to 1.2 km a night, but they have to find a mate. Thinking about wildlife gardening, I wonder if he might make a hole in his garden fence so that the hedgehogs can run through to find a mate? This is essential.
Oliver Colvile
My hon. Friend has been reading my speech or has had prior notice of it.
Hedgehogs need to move a surprising distance to search for food, mates and nesting sites, so we need to make it easier for them to move between gardens, perhaps by making holes in fences. During a visit to Plymouth’s hedgehog rehabilitation and care centre this autumn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), I learned that the way to tackle this problem is to stop habitat loss. I was also rather surprised to learn that we should not leave milk and bread out for hedgehogs. Additionally, slug pellets are a great danger that can be fatally harmful to them.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that the advent of specific hedgehog conservation areas, such as the one in Elmdon in my Solihull constituency, can play a major part in arresting the alarming decline in the numbers of the great British hedgehog?
Oliver Colvile
I am delighted to hear about the area in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I think it important to continue with the theme of ensuring how we can look after the hedgehog.
I was also told that elastic bands, which postmen discard when delivering letters, are also detrimental to hedgehog survivals. There is no robust evidence on this point, but it is one of many concerns that have been raised with me about the pitfalls that hedgehogs must dodge.
Not only do we need hedgehog-friendly gardens, but I also want my hon. Friends and the Government to give local authorities advice on ensuring that hedgehogs do not get caught up in bonfires. Last week, we celebrated bonfire night and I raised my concerns about hedgehogs making nests in the bonfires before they were set alight. One of my hon. Friends suggested that this might be a Catholic plot to ensure that attention was taken away from Guy Fawkes—but I rather dismissed that.
Although it is not thought that badgers are the principal culprit in the demise of hedgehogs, they cannot be totally blame free. In a major DEFRA study, which assessed the ecological consequences of badger removal during the randomised badger culling trial lasting from 1998 to 2006, it was found that removing badgers from a habitat had a number of consequences for other species. The report said that hedgehogs rarely encountered badgers in rural sites, but were found relatively frequently in amenity areas.
Population density increased by over 100% over the course of the randomised badger culling trial in amenity sites in proactive cull areas, while declining slightly in no-cull control sites. No similar increases were detected in rural sites. The report also found that there is strong evidence that badger predation restricts hedgehog populations and that amenity areas in villages act as a spatial refuge for hedgehogs.
In 2011, a further report on the state of British hedgehogs concluded that, while badgers are a natural predator of hedgehogs, where there are good foraging opportunities for worms and beetles, badgers and hedgehogs can coexist. However, when there is no safe refuge, and badgers and hedgehogs compete for these scarce resources, hedgehogs may be in serious trouble.
A more recent study in 2014 found that in areas of preferred habitat, counts did not change where there was no badger culling. An analysis of the original badger culling experiments, published in April 2014, shows that while at some sites hedgehog numbers did increase, following a reduction in the number of badgers, it was thought that some of the sample sizes might have been too small.
I must point out that there have been widespread calls for more research into the effects of the badger, and I welcome this. As I explained earlier, badgers are not the sole cause of the decline in the hedgehog population, but I believe that there is a real danger that if more research is not put into the badger cull, hedgehog numbers will continue to decline. I hope that the Minister will take note of that.
There is a pressing need to support hedgehogs in urban areas. It is very important to focus on the barriers created by walls and impermeable garden fences and the consequent fragmentation of the hedgehog population. The House may like to know that I am pressing my fellow neighbours at the Royal Naval hospital in Plymouth to ensure that we can create a hedgehog-friendly community and increase the number of hedgehogs in this part of my inner-city constituency.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am just reading on the British Hedgehog Preservation Society site that Saturday 21 November is hedgehog day, so I wish to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on one of the timeliest debates on this issue.
Oliver Colvile
Everybody else seems to have had notice of my speech before I ended up making it.
The progressive loss of suitable feeding areas through intensive gardening or inappropriate management of amenity grasslands are also major issues about which we can take action. When new garden fences are installed there are “hedgehog-friendly” options, such as a small hole so that hedgehogs do not become trapped in gardens, and I urge people to consider those in future. More than 36,500 hedgehog champions are campaigning to create hedgehog-friendly neighbourhoods. I have now volunteered to be one, and I am the 150th hedgehog champion from Plymouth to sign up to this excellent scheme.
I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will want to know what you can do. Like me, you can sign up to be a hedgehog champion on the “Hedgehog Street”' website, where you can report sightings of hedgehogs on the “big hedgehog map”. Although it is not a scientific survey, it is an excellent way in which to engage the public, and I challenge as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible to sign up to the cause.
I am delighted to report that Saturday 21 November is the day of the hedgehog, and that hundreds of people are expected to descend on the International Centre, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). I myself will be attempting to set up an all-party parliamentary group for hedgehogs, so that we can advance the cause of those prickly characters. If any Members are interested, I should be delighted if they contacted me on oliver.colvile.mp@parliament.uk. On the same day, the next report reviewing the four main surveys covering hedgehogs in rural and urban areas will be released. It must be remembered that hedgehog numbers are a good indicator of the state of the natural environment, which is why these creatures are so important to the United Kingdom’s ecology.
I think that there is more to be done, and I have therefore suggested to the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), that it should hold an inquiry into how we can save hedgehogs.
I hope that I have set out the case for hedgehogs clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that you too will become a hedgehog supporter. Now is the time to increase the public’s awareness of the plight of these plucky characters. I trust that the aforementioned Mrs T would be delighted that someone is taking up this important cause.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I think I had better confirm, lest my customary silence be taken as negative, that I will of course do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)
Multa novit vulpes, verum echinus unum magnum, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
In every happy home is a hedgehog, as the Pashtuns would say. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage our Pashtun community in this country to follow that example.
Rory Stewart
I am very grateful for that Pushtun intervention, but my hon. Friend refers, of course, to the Asian variety of the hedgehog rather than the western hedgehog, which is the subject of our discussion today.
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.
I am extremely pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). I believe that this is the first time that Parliament has discussed hedgehogs since 1566, when the subject was famously raised in relation to the attribution of a bounty of tuppence for the collection of the hedgehog throughout the United Kingdom.
The hedgehog has undergone an extraordinary evolution. The year 1566 seems very recent, but the hedgehog was around before then. It was around before this Parliament. The hedgehog, and its ancestor, narrowly missed being crushed under the foot of Tyrannosaurus rex. The hedgehog was around long before the human species: it existed 56 million years ago. It tells us a great deal about British civilisation that my hon. Friend has raised the subject, because the hedgehog is a magical creature. It is a creature that appears on cylinder seals in Sumeria, bent backwards on the prows of Egyptian ships. The hedgehog has of course a famous medicinal quality taken by the Romany people for baldness and it represents a symbol of the resurrection found throughout Christian Europe.
This strange animal was known, of course, in Scotland, Wales and Ireland originally in Gaelic as that demonic creature, that horrid creature, and is the hedgehog celebrated by Shakespeare:
“Thorny hedgehogs, be not seen…
Come not near our faerie queen”,
and famously of course in “Richard III” there is that great moment when Gloucester is referred to as a hedgehog. It tells us something about Britain today; it represents a strange decline in British civilisation from a notion of this magical, mystical, terrifying creature to where it is today, and I refer of course to my own constituent, the famous cleanliness representative of Penrith and The Border, Mrs Tiggy-Winkle.
I want to be serious for a moment. The hedgehog is of course an important environmental indicator, with its habitat, its ability to occupy 30 hectares of land, and its particular relationship to the hibernaculum, by which I mean the hedgehog’s ability, almost uniquely among animals in the United Kingdom, to go into a state of genuine hibernation. Its heartbeat goes from 240 a minute to only two a minute for six months a year. It has a particular diet—a focus on grubs and beetles. The street hedgehog initiative, which my hon. Friend has brought forward, reminds us that, by cutting holes in the bottom of our hedges, we can create again an opportunity for hedgehogs to move.
The hedgehog provides a bigger lesson for us in our environment—first, a lesson in scientific humility. The hedgehog has of course been studied for over 2,000 years. The first scientific reference to the hedgehog is in Aristotle; he is picked up again by Isidore of Seville in the 8th century and again by Buffon in the 18th century, and these are reminders of the ways in which we get hedgehogs wrong. Aristotle points out that the hedgehog carries apples on his spine into his nest. Isidore of Seville argues that the hedgehog travels with grapes embedded on his spine. Buffon believes these things might have been food for the winter, but as we know today the hedgehog, hibernating as he does, is not a creature that needs to take food into his nest for the winter.
Again, our belief in Britain that the five teeth of the hedgehog represent the reaction of the sinful man to God—the five excuses that the sinful man makes to God—is subverted by our understanding that the hedgehog does not have five teeth. Finally, the legislation introduced in this House, to my great despair, in 1566 which led to the bounty of a tuppence on a hedgehog was based on a misunderstanding: the idea that the hedgehog fed on the teats of a recumbent cow in order to feed itself on milk. This led to the death of between of half a million and 2 million hedgehogs between 1566 and 1800, a subject John Clare takes forward in a poem of 1805 and which led my own Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, in 1908 to issue a formal notice to farmers encouraging them not to believe that hedgehogs take milk from the teats of a recumbent cow, because of course the hedgehog’s mouth is too small to be able to perform this function.
But before we mock our ancestors, we must understand this is a lesson for us. The scientific mistakes we made in the past about the hedgehog are mistakes that we, too, may be mocked for in the future. We barely understand this extraordinary creature. We barely understand for example its habit of self-anointing; we will see a hedgehog produce an enormous amount of saliva and throw it over its back. We do not understand why it does that. We do not really understand its habit of aestivation, which is to say the hedgehog which my hon. Friend referred to—the Pushto version of the hedgehog—hibernates in the summer as well as the winter. We do not understand that concept of aestivation.
For those of us interested in environmental management, the hedgehog also represents the important subject of conflict in habitats. The habitat that suits the hedgehog is liminal land: it is edge land, hedgerows and dry land. The hedgehog is not an animal that flourishes in many of our nature reserves. It does not do well in peatland or in dense, heavy native woodland. The things that prey on the hedgehog are sometimes things that we treasure. My hon. Friend mentioned badgers.
Rebecca Pow
Does the Minister agree that the successful survival of our hedgehog population is a direct reflection of how healthy and sustainable our environment is? It is important that we should look after the environment, because the knock-on effect of that will be that our hedgehog population will be looked after.
Rory Stewart
That is an important point. The hedgehog is a generalist species, and traditionally we have not paid much attention to such species. We have been very good at focusing on specialist species, such as the redshank, which requires a particular kind of wet habitat. The hedgehog is a more challenging species for us to take on board.
As I was saying, the hedgehog is a good indicator for hedgerow habitat, although it is not much use for peatland or wetland. The hedgehog raises some important environmental questions. One is the question of conflict with the badger. Another is the question of the hedgehog in the western isles, which relates to the issue of the hedgehog’s potential predation on the eggs of the Arctic tern.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On the point about the hedgehog in the western isles, we have established that hedgehogs are a devolved matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is not in the Chamber at the moment. Scottish Natural Heritage is doing careful work to humanely remove hedgehogs from the Hebrides, and it would be interesting to hear how the UK Government intend to support that work.
Rory Stewart
This is an important reminder that things that matter enormously to our civilisation, our society and our hearts—such as the hedgehog—have to be in the right place. In New Zealand, hedgehogs are considered an extremely dangerous invasive species that has to be removed for the same reasons that people in Scotland are having to think about controlling them there. It does not matter whether we are talking about badgers, hedgehogs or Arctic terns—it is a question of what place they should occupy.
Finally—and, I think, more positively—what the hedgehog really represents for us is an incredible symbol of citizen science. The energy that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has brought to the debate is a great example of British, or perhaps English, eccentricity, and it is on the basis of English eccentricity that our habitat has been preserved. Gilbert White, the great 18th century naturalist, was himself an immense eccentric. It has been preserved thanks to eccentrics such as my hon. Friend and, perhaps most famously of all, Hugh Warwick, the great inspiration behind the British Hedgehog Preservation Society. He has written no fewer than three books on the hedgehog, and he talks very movingly about staring into the eyes of a hedgehog and getting a sense of its wildness from its gaze. These enthusiasts connect the public to nature, sustain our 25-year environment programme and contribute enormously to our scientific understanding of these animals. This is true in relation to bees, to beavers and in particular to Hugh Warwick’s work on hedgehogs. I am also pleased that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned national hedgehog day in an earlier intervention.
Ultimately, we need to understand that the hedgehog is a very prickly issue. The reason for that is that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has raised the question of adopting the hedgehog as our national symbol. Some hon. Members will remember that the hedgehog was used by Saatchi & Saatchi in an advertising campaign for the Conservative party in 1992 general election. We should therefore pay tribute to the hedgehog’s direct contribution to our election victory in that year. But I would like to challenge my hon. Friend’s assertion that the hedgehog should become our national symbol. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I ask those on both sides of this House, because this question concerns not only one party, but all of us: do we want to have as our national symbol an animal which when confronted with danger rolls over into a little ball and puts its spikes up? Do we want to have as our national symbol an animal that sleeps for six months of the year? Or would we rather return to the animal that is already our national symbol? I refer, of course, to the lion, which is majestic, courageous and proud.
If I may finish with a little testimony to my hon. Friend and to those innocent creatures which are hedgehogs, perhaps I can reach back to them not as a symbol for our nation but as a symbol of innocence to Thomas Hardy. He says:
“When the hedgehog travels furtively over the lawn,
One may say, ‘He strove that such innocent creatures should come to no harm,
But he could do little for them; and now he is gone.’
If, when hearing that I have been stilled at last, they stand at the door,
Watching the full-starred heavens that winter sees,
Will this thought rise on those who will meet my face no more,
‘He was one who had an eye for such mysteries’?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I paused because I wanted to encourage some more positive noises for the Minister, who has just made one of the best speeches I have ever heard in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Prison and Young Offender Institution (amendment) Rules 2015
(8 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Amendment) Rules 2015 (S.I. 2015, No. 1638).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The statutory instrument was brought to our attention by Members in the other place who felt that the House should be made aware of the changes. I share their concerns, and will briefly explain the changes. They are the Government’s reaction to a court judgment, and I think that they have done their best and have tried hard to react in a way that is proportionate and contains safeguards. The amendment we are considering increases the period before which a review of the decision to segregate a prisoner, independent of the prison, is required, from 72 hours to 42 days. After the first external authorisation, the amended rules require the Secretary of State’s authorisation to be sought only every 42 days, which seems a rather long time.
Although I concede that the Government have done their best, the Opposition have some concerns that are not addressed. We are seriously concerned that the amendment goes beyond what was clearly intended in the enabling legislation. There are well-known risks of solitary confinement to which we want to draw the Government’s attention and there has been a lack of external consultation on the measures. I appreciate that that is because the amendment is in response to a court judgment and that there has not been time, but we need assurances that such external consultation will take place. The Government need to be more mindful of the big difference between internal and external authorisation of solitary confinement.
Given their experience, I am sure that members of the Committee will be familiar with some of our concerns about solitary confinement. The judgment to which the Government responded considered evidence from both international and domestic experts about the risks to the physical health, mental health and life of a prisoner who is subjected to prolonged periods of solitary confinement. The evidence included the disproportionate number of self-inflicted deaths in segregation—there were 28 such deaths between 2007 and 2014. It also included the harmful psychological effects of isolation which, experts estimate, can become irreversible after about 15 days. The symptoms of solitary confinement range from insomnia and confusion to hallucinations and psychosis, and the negative health effects can occur after only a few days, increasing with each additional day in confinement.
It is impossible to see how an extended period of 42 days, which surpasses even the 28-day review period in Scotland, can be justified, in light of the purpose of the mechanism and the risks associated with segregation. There is a risk that the 42-day period will be too long for the most vulnerable prisoners. I have some case studies from the prisons and probation ombudsman on deaths in segregation units, which suggest that many of those who die would not get to 42 days.
It is important to remember that the rules will apply to young offenders as well as to adults. One case study, from the Howard League, shows how in Feltham, in October 2014, a 17-year-old boy disclosed that he had been segregated for good order and discipline for eight days. He reported being confined to his cell for 23.5 hours a day. I appreciate that the rules proposed by the Government require visits from health and other professionals, but although healthcare visitors had seen this person every day, that involved just opening the door to his cell and not going in to spend time with him. He said he felt depressed but had not reported that to healthcare visitors. He also said he thought he was segregated because he had had too much canteen, but had no knowledge of any formal investigation or adjudication charges.
There is a danger that although the Government’s proposals look good on paper, because they are not consolidated into a single set of rules—they amend things all over the place—they will not be implemented as I am sure the Minister hopes they will be. He will know that there is a real difference between issuing a Prison Service order and what happens in practice. We need assurances that the implementation will be closely monitored.
In another case study at Werrington prison in January, a 15-year-old boy with learning difficulties was placed in a segregation unit for over a month and simultaneously placed on closed visits. He was confined to his cell for 22 to 24 hours a day. The deterioration in his behaviour was one of the reasons that led to his segregation, which is often, if not always, the case. That was a direct consequence of the prison’s failure to provide him with his prescribed medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the failure to provide the correct quantities of his medication at the correct intervals. This young person ended up in segregation and his already fragile mental health became more damaged.
I turn to examples from reports by the independent monitoring board and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. HMIP’s annual report 2013-14 concluded:
“Too many prisoners in crisis were held in segregation in poor conditions and without the exceptional circumstances required to justify this.”
The IMB’s report into Whitemoor prison criticised the way in which the segregation unit is run, describing it as
“the warehousing of the mentally vulnerable.”
The IMB report into Highpoint prison for 2013-2014 said:
“The Board still has grave concerns regarding prisoners with quite severe mental health problems being located on the”
unit,
“sometimes for long periods of time whist they are assessed for transfer to a more appropriate placement. This often involves having to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and this involves securing funding and specialist treatment from the appropriate Healthcare Authority”—
that obviously takes time, but the
“Board continues to stress that these situations are intolerable, both for the staff who have to deal with these very disturbed individuals and the prisoners themselves.”
Staff working in segregation units do outstanding work in the most difficult circumstances. Seg is the first place I ask to see when I visit a prison because it is a good indicator of the overall health of a prison to look at the board to see how many people are in seg and how long they have been there, and to talk to staff about the circumstances.
The IMB report into Lancaster Farms prison for young adults reported frustration at its view that at times the segregation
“unit holds a number of problematic or vulnerable prisoners, needing careful management, who are difficult to relocate on normal residential units. The time taken to transfer some of these prisoners to other prisons providing the required interventions is unacceptably long.”
There is a direct relationship between overcrowding in an establishment and understaffing and use of seg. It is about not just wanting to use the bed space in the seg, but the regime not being able to deal with unruly prisoners in a more desirable way, and having to remove them and keep them somewhere else.
In a case study from the prisons and probation ombudsman, Mr A was moved to the segregation unit after he was found in an off-limits part of the prison, arousing staff suspicions that he was smuggling in illegal items. The staff who found him reported that he seemed frightened and was shaking. When moved to the seg, he quickly began to protest about his situation. He became disruptive and, shortly afterwards, started self-harming using a plastic knife. Staff began the assessment, care in custody and teamwork—or ACCT—procedure, but did not consider it necessary to move him to another location. As a result of further threats to smash up his cell and to self-harm, prison staff removed all non-fixed furniture from his cell, leaving him with only a mattress. All his clothing and standard bedding were removed and he was given a tear-proof tunic and blanket. After the removal of furniture from his cell, prison staff failed to follow the proper protective arrangements including failing to observe Mr A with the required regularity. Later that evening, he was found hanging in his cell, having made a ligature from his tear-resistant blanket. That case demonstrates that even with the best internal safeguards in place, these things are not always carried out in the way the Minister would like. I have my doubts about whether, without the external scrutiny, we will see the kind of implementation we all want to see.
I have one last case study. Upon arrival in prison, Mr D requested vulnerable prisoner status because of his size—he was 5 feet tall and weighed 6 stone—and because other prisoners knew about his background. He was housed in the segregation unit while his suitability for the vulnerable prisoner unit was assessed, which was not ideal. A week later, he was moved to the vulnerable prisoner unit but, following an incident in which he threatened to jump from a landing, he was moved back to the seg. While he was in the seg, staff opened ACCT procedures twice. On both occasions, staff filled in a form with details of the exceptional circumstances that justified keeping him in segregation while subject to ACCT procedures. Both times, the reason given was that no other location was suitable. No details were given about which other locations—for example, the healthcare unit—had been considered and why they were unsuitable. Two days later, he was moved to the seg unit for the second time and found hanged in his cell.
It would help if we had a little more information about how some form of external monitoring of these measures could be done quickly, even before the Government consult externally, which I assume the Minister intends to do. Paragraph 7.6(e) of the explanatory memorandum says that prisons must do all they can to “facilitate involvement” of the independent monitoring boards in the segregation review boards. I want to know exactly how that will happen, because it is a very easy thing to say. We are aware that IMBs vary in their—how shall I put this?—challenge and scrutiny of regimes with which they have perhaps been associated for a great number of years. We need to ensure that the external challenge is a real challenge.
The explanatory memorandum also says that offenders concerned in the seg will be able to “make representations” to the review board. Will they get any support to do that? If a prisoner has been in solitary for some time, their capacity to represent themselves and make their case would be enhanced by some form of assistance. What does the Minister think that might look like?
As I have said, we need to look at consolidating the rules, because it will not be straightforward for governors or staff to implement the changes if they are not presented in a user-friendly way. I am not aware of any intention to provide additional training on the measures. If that were possible, it would be incredibly helpful, in order to ensure that the changes are implemented in the way we would like them to be.
The big issue, however, is the lack of external consultation and challenge. It is all very well presenting what seems a quite reasonable response to a court judgment, saying, “We will do this properly. We will involve professionals. We will involve healthcare. We will be mindful of the impact on mental health,” but if the Minister is prepared to see people held for 42 days without external challenge, it is only right that Members are made aware and given the opportunity to challenge him and, hopefully, elicit some reassurance and commitments to which we can hold him in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I will do my best to address the various concerns raised quite properly by the shadow Minister.
This measure will amend the prison and young offender institution rules on the removal of prisoners from association—known as segregation—for the maintenance of good order or discipline or in the prisoner’s interests. It provides that the removal for more than 72 hours must be authorised by the governor, and that the governor must obtain leave from the Secretary of State for longer-term segregation beyond 42 days. The changes were proposed in response to the findings of the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Bourgass case on 29 July, which held that, under the previous rules, the governor could not lawfully authorise segregation beyond 72 hours.
Prisoners may be placed in segregation for two main reasons: under prison rule 55, as a punishment following an adjudication, or under prison rule 45, for purposes of good order and discipline or the prisoner’s protection. The measure applies only to rule 45 and its equivalent rule for young offender institutions. The purpose of segregation under rule 45 is to temporarily remove from general association with their peers any prisoner whose behaviour presents a risk to the good order and safety of the establishment. Prisoners may also be segregated in their own interests.
Of course, segregation must be a last resort and for the least time necessary. The prisoner must be returned to the normal location as soon as it is safe and practicable to do so. Every effort is made to keep prisoners out of segregation and to ensure that, where they are segregated, they can be managed out again as quickly as possible. Various alternative schemes have been developed to manage disruptive prisoners without recourse to segregation, ranging from behavioural management systems on normal location to a series of close-supervision centres for the most disruptive prisoners. Despite the alternatives, many prisons could not function without a system for segregating prisoners.
Segregation under prison rule 45 is never used as a punishment. Discipline issues, including disruptive and violent behaviour, may be dealt with through a range of sanctions under the separate internal prison disciplinary system, or through application of the incentives and earned privileges scheme. Prisoners may be segregated under prison rule 45 only where their behaviour or the risk to them is such that it cannot safely be managed on normal location.
The initial decision to segregate a prisoner for up to 72 hours is taken by a prison governor, with advice from a healthcare professional who has assessed the prisoner’s health and wellbeing with regard to their being segregated. That must be done within two hours of the prisoner first being segregated.
Jenny Chapman
Will the Minister explain what a healthcare professional’s assessment should entail?
Andrew Selous
I am not a clinician, but, as I will explain, the assessment involves a nurse and a doctor seeing the prisoner every three days to assess their mental state, wellbeing and ability to function well under the segregation regime. If the shadow Minister will allow me, I will say more about the healthcare aspects of segregation in due course.
The prisoner may be returned to the normal location at any time within the initial 72-hour period, if that is considered appropriate, but if they are to remain segregated, a segregation review board must be convened before the 72-hour period elapses to determine whether that is needed. The segregation review board is a multidisciplinary board, comprising an experienced prison governor, who chairs the board, a healthcare professional, and, if the prisoner is at risk of self-harm or suicide, the appropriate case manager. The prisoner will also normally attend. The board should also be attended by a member of the independent monitoring board and other prison staff who know the prisoner and his or her circumstances, as well as a member of the chaplaincy team, the prisoner’s offender manager and a psychologist, if necessary.
The purpose of the segregation review board is to consider and discuss fully all the factors in favour of or against the prisoner’s continuing segregation and, if necessary, to continue to authorise segregation for further periods of up to 14 days at a time. Prisoners held in segregation are not kept in isolation and meaningful contact with other prisoners and staff in the unit is actively encouraged. While a prisoner is segregated, he or she must be visited daily by the governor with responsibility for the segregation unit, by a member of the healthcare team, by a doctor every three days, by the chaplaincy team and by segregation unit staff. At other times, the prisoner will be visited by and have the opportunity to speak to the independent monitoring board member and the governor in overall charge of the prison.
As far as possible, segregated prisoners have access to a regime that is comparable to that on normal location. This includes the usual basic entitlements to social and legal visits, religious services, access to the telephone, showers and exercise in the open air and, where possible, access to a gym. Where possible, association with other segregated prisoners will be facilitated. In addition, they are provided with reading and hobby materials and, where appropriate, in-cell work and education. All prisoners have access to a dedicated Samaritan phone and access to Listeners—the peer support scheme where prisoners help each other on such issues, which is very effective. Access to privileges under the incentives and earned privileges scheme is also possible, depending on the prisoner’s IEP level and compliance with behavioural targets while in segregation. This can include additional facilities, such as in-cell television and radio or CD players.
Prisoners entering segregation are screened to pick up any physical or mental health issues and to assess a prisoner’s ability to cope with segregation. Prisoners are seen daily, as I have said, by a healthcare professional and, every three days, by a doctor. Alternatives to segregation are always sought for prisoners with mental health problems. Location in a healthcare centre or closer management on normal location may be possible. As a last resort, those prisoners with mental health problems placed in segregation will be supported by a mental health in-reach team, and prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm will have a mental health assessment if placed in segregation and will be observed in line with their individual assessment, care in custody and teamwork plan. The amended rules and new policy introduced following the Supreme Court ruling provide further safeguards.
Rule 45, as amended, provides that governors will need permission from the Secretary of State to segregate for a period longer than 42 days—in practice, from deputy directors of custody—and these reviews continue at 42-day intervals. After six months, a director of the National Offender Management Service must review continuing segregation. For young people, we have halved those time periods to 21 days and three months through policy changes.
We have made other changes to the segregation policy, strengthening guidance to ensure that prisoners are given sufficiently detailed reasons for their segregation and have the opportunity to make meaningful representations against their segregation.
Jenny Chapman
I do not recognise the picture that the Minister paints of life in a segregation unit, but that is not the point. Why does he think that, prior to the judgment, it was seen as desirable, even though it was not implemented in reality—which, I guess, underlines the point I am making—that external authorisation should be sought after 72 hours?
Andrew Selous
As I am saying, there is a whole series of checks: at 72 hours, at 14 days, after another 14 days, at 42 days and at six months. In addition to the daily healthcare visits and the visits from a doctor every three days, there is monitoring and oversight of the policy by various other members of prison staff, which I shall come on to.
The Government consider the changes to prison rules and the associated changes to the National Offender Management Service policy on prisoner segregation to be essential, not only to the smooth and safe running of our prisons, but to assuring the wellbeing of those prisoners whom it is necessary to segregate. The Supreme Court judgment of 29 July held that the existing practice whereby a prison governor authorised the segregation of a prisoner beyond 72 hours on behalf of the Secretary of State to be unlawful, given the construction of the prison rules. Up to that point, governors had always authorised segregation beyond 72 hours.
Following the Supreme Court judgment, we considered two broad options to comply with it. The first option was to implement an independent review process under the then existing rule 45(2) that would allow an official, who was external to the prison, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to authorise segregation beyond 72 hours and each subsequent period up to 14 days. Consideration was given to these decisions being taken by someone external to the prison, such as the independent monitoring board, the independent adjudicators, the deputy director of custody, or a central committee of caseworkers. There are a number of problems with that option. It would mean that a person who is detached from the detailed circumstances of the case and the day-to-day prison environment would be taking a decision. Such a system would not allow the prisoner the opportunity of making real-time representations against his or her segregation.
Each option would present considerable logistical and resource problems, given that approximately 24,000 segregation decisions of this kind are made every year. It is clear that any decision taken by a body independent of the prison at this stage, with such large numbers of reviews, would need to be taken on paper alone, given the sheer volume of cases, and therefore would add little to the quality of decision making.
The decision to segregate a prisoner can often be a fine balance between what is in the best interests of the individual prisoner, and the interests and safety of the wider population of the prison. That decision is often informed by a detailed, hands-on knowledge of the dynamics of the prison at a particular period and how a prisoner’s behaviour may be safely managed within that specific dynamic. The existing system of internal authorisation by the governor is taken on the advice of the segregation review board, which consists of a range of people who know the prisoner and the prison, and to which the prisoner is able to give a first-hand account of his or her views, which is particularly important given that prisoners often have poor written and language skills.
The second option considered how greater procedural fairness could be achieved within the existing authorisation process, including by amending the prison and YOI rules to allow governors to authorise segregation beyond 72 hours for periods of up to 14 days.
After careful evaluation of all the evidence, it was decided that the second option—a decision taken by the governor on the advice of the multi-disciplinary segregation review board—provides the best and safest system of ensuring that segregation decisions are fair and proportionate, and protects the interests of the prisoner concerned as well as the wider population of the establishment. Further safeguards and enhancements to the procedural fairness of the overall system were also made, as I described earlier, including two additional layers of review by experienced senior officials outside the prison. That provides important additional safeguards. This is a comprehensive system of review with the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that both prisons and prisoners are safeguarded.
Following the Supreme Court judgment in July, the Government have taken immediate action to ensure that a lawful and procedurally fair system is in place. We are confident that it is the best and safest system for prisoners in segregation. It was decided that, because of the urgency of the situation, it was not possible to undertake consultation widely before the rules came into force. The shadow Minister and others will be pleased to know that a consultation process began on 9 September, with a closing date of the end of October. I assure Members that their comments will be taken into account fully during the current segregation policy review and will inform the need for any possible further amendments to that policy or the prison and YOI rules. Any amendments that are necessary, including further possible amendments of the rules, will be taken forward as part of that work.
It is vital that prisons can manage the most challenging behaviour from prisoners through a safe, fair and lawful system of segregation. These amending rules and the supporting NOMS segregation policy provide such a system. I hope that Members agree that these measures provide a sensible, safe and proportionate response to the Supreme Court judgment.
The shadow Minister asked how we will ensure that the rules are adhered to. There is significant external monitoring. The NOMS audit team will monitor adherence to the process. The deputy directors of custody—in effect, the immediate line manager of governing governors of prisons—regularly visit segregation units, in addition to the 42-day check that they must make. The independent monitoring boards—which are, of course, external to prison—and volunteers from the local community also regularly visit. The governing governor will visit care and separation units weekly at the very least.
The shadow Minister also asked me about support for making representations. Our policy requires an officer or governor to support a prisoner in making representations, particularly where there are language problems or learning disabilities. That support will involve sitting down with them and helping them to write a statement, if that is needed. I hope that hon. Members can see that we are taking a fair and proportionate approach to this serious issue. These are serious matters, and we need to get them right. I commend the rules to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Prison and Young Offender Institution (Amendment) Rules 2015 (S.I. 2015, No. 1638).
Defence Implementation Road Map
(8 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
What a pleasure, Mr Hanson, to serve under your chairmanship twice in a week. This is becoming a regular occurrence.
It may help the Committee if I explain a little of the background and why the European Scrutiny Committee recommended this Commission report for debate. A precursor July 2013 Commission communication, “Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector”, was part of the preparations for the December 2013 Defence Council, the first for five years on the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy—CSDP. It was designed for Heads of State and Governments to agree its strategic direction over the next few years and it was one of a trio of scene-setting documents, all of which were debated.
This Commission report set out a high-level roadmap for implementing activities proposed in the earlier communication. The Minister declared himself encouraged by the Commission’s approach as it began the follow-through process, but the previous Scrutiny Committee had concluded that there was still a significant number of areas that could go in the wrong direction notwithstanding the Minister’s best endeavours, so that Committee accordingly formally requested the opinion of the then Select Committee on Defence.
In brief, the Defence Committee shared the Minister’s concerns that any detailed action in respect of an EU-wide security-of-supply regime and the defence procurement directive could lead to unnecessary regulation, encourage European protectionism, constrain the Government’s ability to make their own defence procurement decisions, or risk undermining the UK’s and other European partners’ relations with the United States. It expressed concerns about a proposed green paper on the control of the defence industry’s capability and the value of new legislation in this area. It was also concerned about Commission action in third-country markets and what value would be added by the Commission’s extending its activities in this area.
The Defence Committee agreed with the Minister that export policy should be a matter of national sovereignty and said that any CSDP-related preparatory action on dual-use research should ensure that UK national interests are protected and that intellectual property rights remain with the industry and not the Commission. Notwithstanding the increasing synergies between the defence and civil sectors, it questioned what value the European Commission could add in a number of areas for action outlined in the report. It also stated that research and development in science and technologies applicable to defence, which the Committee called
“the life-blood of the military capabilities of advanced states and alliances”,
must remain free from unnecessary bureaucracy, especially where dual-use technologies were in development. It concluded that it was concerned that initiatives might arise from this roadmap that would lead to unnecessary legislation and duplication of effort with NATO.
In summary, the Defence Committee strongly endorsed the previous Committee’s view that this report should be debated.
The Chair
Order. This is a statement. The hon. Gentleman may give way later during the debate.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Nevertheless, the new Committee concluded that the issues remained live, and that a debate was still appropriate. In so concluding, the Committee hoped that this debate would enable the Minister to bring the House up to date on developments in all the areas encompassed by the report, demonstrate how UK interests have been protected thus far, and outline how he envisages this road map now being taken forward and how UK interests will continue to be safeguarded.
The Chair
I now call the Minister to make an opening statement. As was the case with the Member who introduced the debate, it will be a statement and questions will be taken afterwards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Julian Brazier)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for his opening remarks. As he will gather, the Government share many of his concerns. It is regrettable that we are only now debating the Commission’s 2014 road map, which was first recommended for debate a year ago. However, I assure the Committee that we have taken full note of its earlier comments, and those of the Defence Committee, in our subsequent engagement.
The concerns raised by the Committee are still very much alive and worthy of debate. The Commission’s ambition, or at least that of some of the individuals in it, is clearly expansionary and requires constant management by us to protect and promote our national interests. That is at the heart of what we are trying to do. I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to set out how we are doing that in practice, including our objectives, progress and forthcoming challenges and opportunities.
Let me provide some background. As my hon. Friend said, the Commission implementation road map was published in June last year. It followed on from an earlier document from the previous year, to which he also referred. It was really that 2013 document, which the Committee debated in March 2014, that was the beginning of a push by the Commission into defence. It included more than 30 objectives that the Commission sought to pursue in the defence sector.
That 2013 communication featured at the December 2013 European Council and the Prime Minister made it very clear that the Commission should not own defence capabilities and spoke of the importance of NATO-EU co-operation, while recognising the central role of NATO to our defence. The principles were accepted by the wider European Council, as the Committee will know, and they remain absolutely pivotal for us today.
The main elements of the 2014 road map are contained in the explanatory memorandum and include: the intent to publish defence procurement directive guidance on the use of international organisations and the use of Government-to-Government sales; a road map on security of supply; a green paper on controls on defence assets; and preparatory action on defence research.
We believe that the document is some testament to our robust lobbying. Although there are certainly areas of concern in it, the overall approach recognises the importance of engaging closely with member states and other stakeholders such as the defence industry. As I said at the beginning, our national interest is at the heart of our negotiations in this area. In making the argument, let me address the Committee’s legitimate concern about the Commission’s having any involvement at all in the defence sector. That is a concern that I share—and indeed, in an earlier life, spoke about a number of times—particularly when it could imply creating a specific military role for the Commission or any action that has the potential to promote the EU at the expense of NATO, which some actors still seek to do.
In matters such as defence procurement and industrial policy, the Commission already has some internal market competence, but we will, of course, continue to defend the article 346 treaty exemption, including our right to act in accordance with our national security interests in the procurement area. Even with that, the risk remains of the Commission’s introducing proposals that are quite contrary to our broader interests, which is a threat that we will not ignore.
There is a wider point that Europe’s defence industry remains too fragmented and suffers from duplication and overcapacity. The Commission, working with member states, can have a role in removing some of the internal market barriers. We must continue to make the points that increasing defence expenditure across Europe, along with greater member state procurement co-operation and specialisation, are key to increasing our defence capability. UK-French co-operation and the work with Sweden on Gripen are examples, but that could be squandered if it is not supported by an efficient defence industry. Accordingly, the Government have worked continuously to shape Commission activity in order to protect our interests.
On Commission guidance on the defence procurement directive and Government-to-Government sales, we have led the debate, seeking to shape this towards a pragmatic clarification of the directive, rather than anything that could constrain our ability to procure defence capability, including, of course, from the US. Similarly, on the CSDP preparatory action, which has the potential to help stimulate the defence industry and bring new innovative capability to market, we have robustly engaged with the Commission to ensure that member states have the central role in decision making, and we would in no way support the Commission’s owning defence capability.
The results of the engagement were clear in the Commission’s most recent note on its activity in May. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I updated the Committee about that in July, as part of a wider update on the June Council. Thus, as a result of member state lobbying, action on supporting defence exports has been shelved, as has any immediate action on the controls on defence asset mergers and acquisitions.
However, EU action in support of defence small and medium-sized enterprises has been disappointing. It is clear that the EU needs to do more to provide practical assistance to SMEs in the sector. For example, we made the case strongly that the Commission must engage directly with SMEs to understand their challenges and where they can add value. The European Defence Agency is doing some work on that, such as guidance for SMEs on how to apply for EU funding, which I hope in time can be of practical benefit. In the UK we are also taking steps, for example, to level the playing field for SMEs by ensuring that we do not exclude them from competitions on the basis of rigid turnover-to-contract value ratios.
In summary, our engagement so far has been effective, but we must remain watchful. The June Council was a positive result for us in that the conclusions were kept strategic and high level. The EU focus is also at last on seeking to address the defence industry from a perspective of promoting growth, rather than via regulation. Our key partners such as Germany and France recognise the importance of member states taking the lead in those activities, with the Commission playing only a supporting role. However, threats remain. Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker recently wrote that a Commission 2016 priority was a new action plan on the defence industry, a document we expect some time in the new year.
Mindful of that, I stress that the Government will continue to shape EU action in accordance with our national interests, keeping NATO as the bedrock of our defence and ensuring that the EU plays a pragmatic, positive role and that sovereignty remains firmly in the hands of member states. In support of that, I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject, and I look forward to hearing the Committee’s observations.
The Chair
We now have until 3.35 pm for questions. At my discretion, I will allow supplementary questions.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a pleasure, Mr Hanson, to serve under your chairmanship. May I ask the Minister why we support EU defence industrial policy when we do not have a defence industrial policy of our own?
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We are not supporting EU industrial policy; we are supporting initiatives by the EDA to do what is sometimes called “speed dating” to encourage companies in different European countries to talk about how they can work together to reduce the massive overcapacity in the European defence industry and to get better value for money. To expand that answer slightly, one of our specific contributions has been to persuade countries to look at cross-purchase, or reciprocal purchase, as well as at several nations collaborating, because that is often a cheaper and more effective way of getting good value for defence.
Mr Jenkin
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I remind him that in the 2010 Conservative manifesto we were going to pull out of the European Defence Agency? Then, under the coalition, we were told that we could not pull out of the EDA because we were in coalition. Now we are not in coalition, but we are still participating in the EDA. Why have we changed our policy?
Mr Brazier
We regularly review our membership of the EDA. The most recent study took place after I became a Minister. It is a relatively small budget and a simple tactical choice. In fact, one EU country chooses not to participate: Denmark. The choice is entirely pragmatic. At the moment, the small budget spent offers value for money, we feel, because in a number of areas we can see that savings are provided. The EU is not a competitor with NATO, at least not as we are formulating it, but having the EU as a forum where we can discuss participation in various collaborative projects—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset mentioned collaboration—intellectual property rights, dual use and so on, provides good value in some areas. We do not have an ideological commitment to remain a member, but an independent study has looked at it in the past 12 months and we believe it offers good value for money.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Is it too suspicious to think that what the European Commission is trying to do is to set the groundwork for the common European army that it has been talking about in other contexts, and that procurement is, because of the over-supply, a relatively easy first step to push into?
Mr Brazier
There is no question of this country ever agreeing to be part of a European army. There is absolutely no question of that. From time to time, we have taken part in successful EU military ventures—mostly small-scale—in which, for one reason or another, NATO has chosen not to operate. At Northwood, which I visited several times before I was a Minister, we have the headquarters of the EU’s anti-piracy effort, for example, which has been extremely successful. There is no question of a European army, navy or air force.
Procurement is an area where there is scope for savings. We have massive overcapacity in the European defence industry, so it is in our interest to find ways of reducing it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he say how much of that overcapacity might be used up if other NATO members managed to meet their 2% of GDP spending target, and whether that might not be part of the solution, rather than having an internal market for defence?
Mr Brazier
I am not quite clear why my hon. Friend is making a contrast here. This country is absolutely clear: we believe that every NATO member should spend 2% of GDP on defence. Of course, not all NATO members are in the EU and not all EU members are in NATO. We have set an example and we are one of the five NATO countries that spend 2% of GDP and are firmly committed to that. I do not see why that is somehow an alternative to the view that, at a time when, first, we have massive overcapacity in the European defence industry and, secondly, we have some of the best and most competitive defence operators in this country—in fact, the second biggest defence industry in the free world after America—we should, subject to the carefully ring-fenced areas of our security, have an internal market here and encourage more competition. That seems to me self-evident. Our defence industry is likely to benefit and it offers better value for money in western arms purchases.
Mr Rees-Mogg
But if we are to have an internal market, does that not begin to bring in the single market rules? It may well be in the interests of this nation to support an uneconomic defence manufacturing industry because of the need for certainty of supply at a time of war which may be unpredictable. I seem to remember that during the first Gulf war, Belgium would not supply bullets—
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is as helpful as ever. Belgium would not provide hand grenades to British forces. Can we really risk being in a situation where these decisions are in any way constrained?
Mr Brazier
Nobody has ever challenged the British Government. I understand there has never been a court case in which we have sought article 346 protection for a decision on defence procurement—not once. Article 346 is our protection on that. From memory—it was a long time ago and I do not want to frighten my officials—it was shells that Belgium would not provide, not hand grenades. However, in any area where we feel that security of supply is essential—shipbuilding is one such area—we can claim article 346 protection. As I said, it is fairly rare that article 346 claims have been challenged for any country, and no one has ever tried that when Britain does it. I have one last background point: article 346 today covers roughly 10% of all our defence procurement spending, so it is not a trivial, peripheral, last-resort thing.
The Chair
I will take Martin Docherty. If there is time at the end, we will take Mr Rees-Mogg’s question.
Martin John Docherty
I am grateful to be under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Hanson. I want to take up the point about shipbuilding, because I represent a constituency that no longer has shipbuilding because of a closed UK market. Shipbuilding in my constituency has been annihilated in the past 40 years. What we have seen in the past couple of weeks is the German Government picking up our inability to take on capacity by assisting the Royal Navy. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that.
Mr Brazier
I am sorry: I did not understand the last part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He is concerned about the structure of the shipping market, but I did not understand his point about Germany. Could he repeat it please?
Martin John Docherty
My point is that Germany has recently been helping the United Kingdom in terms of its naval production because we do not have the capacity to meet our own need.
Mr Brazier
This Government have freed up the funds to pay for a very substantial naval programme. We have a large-scale submarine programme and large-scale frigate programme. I myself visited—it is a little way away from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but by Scottish standards not that far—the Queen Elizabeth just before the Queen came to launch her; we have the Prince of Wales being built, too, and we have an offshore patrol vessel programme. This Government, by taking some extremely painful decisions on manpower, have ensured that we are able to afford a modern, huge, £160 billion equipment programme, of which warship building forms a very large part.
Martin John Docherty
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but that is only one part of the equation, because what the Germans are doing is helping us with our refuelling tankers. It does not answer the question about our inability to fill our own capacity. The Minister has not answered that question.
Mr Brazier
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman wants me to say. Before I came into the House, I worked as a management consultant, and some of our clients were famous names, such as Swan Hunter, which no longer exists, except in the history books—it was not entirely my fault. The reality is that shipbuilding did not just go through a recession and a depression. The hon. Gentleman knows that all over the world, world-class shipbuilding facilities closed, and most of the shipbuilding in Europe was lost in the course of 30 or 40 years under Governments of all descriptions. Swan Hunter, 30 years ago, was a major producer of warships and had a strong tradition of producing merchant ships, but it does not exist any longer south of the border, so perhaps it is not among the hon. Gentleman’s interests. The fact is that we lost a lot of shipbuilding capacity. The way in which we ensure that we maintain the shipbuilding capacity that we still have is by having an active shipbuilding programme, and that is exactly what this Government are funding.
Martin John Docherty
I am sorry, Mr Hanson, but of course I disagree with the Minister on this point. The point about the co-operation with Germany is that it is allowing us to meet our need. That needs to be recognised and we need to build on that partnership. The European Union, in any aspect of defence, is not a threat. My constituents are very clear on that. The biggest threat to our co-operation on defence with allies is the possible Brit exit next year.
Mr Brazier
I think that the hon. Gentleman is over-egging his point. The EU offers some valuable opportunities for us to deal with other countries, and I mentioned the anti-piracy patrol as an example. The EDA has produced a number of joint projects on issues such as certification, airworthiness, helicopter training and so on, which have freed up money. There is also a small element of dual-use research, which is of real value. However, to suggest somehow or other that the EU is the cornerstone of our defence, when it is manifestly obvious that it is NATO, seems very strange.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was under the impression that in the Gulf war, the Belgians did not supply us with 9 mm ammunition for submachine guns, not artillery shells—but whatever it was, they certainly did not provide one of those things. May I ask my friend the Minister whether this EDA strategy is going to end up with a possible attack on sovereign capability among SMEs, for instance?
Mr Brazier
I am most grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend—he is a good friend—for his question, to which the answer is no, it is not. All that is happening here is an attempt to get better value out of a defence industry that is completely out of scale with the amount of defence purchasing going on. We are helping by guaranteeing 2% and encouraging other people to meet NATO’s 2% target, and we have one or two countries such as Sweden that are not in NATO that are relatively large defence spenders for their size, but the fact is that British industry is offered more opportunities if people are willing to have a more open market in this field.
We are the one country that is really speaking up for SMEs—I say that having done it a couple of times in the European Council. I hesitate to go back to an earlier life and some of the things that I used to write about them before I was even elected to this place, but the fact is that SMEs have a huge role to play in defence. They often have very innovative ideas and different ways of doing things that can offer a great deal for our armed forces. It is no secret that sometimes—sadly—they are seen by prime contractors as a threat to their supply chain, which inevitably, they have a temptation to place cosily with their own subsidiaries. SMEs are extremely important. We as a Government are supporting them, and we are the country that is pushing them hardest in Europe.
Bob Stewart
I have a follow-up question. I do not quite get it. Hon. Friends have already raised the matter of the EDA versus us. Surely it is the Ministry of Defence that decides. We have been spending ages and ages looking at the way procurement is done in this country to our advantage. I am slightly concerned that suddenly we will have some EDA strategy that directs us in a different way that runs counter to the way the Minister and his fellow Ministers want to deal with it. That is a worry that I have had and continue to have.
Mr Brazier
May I just set my hon. and gallant Friend’s mind at rest? There are a number of risks from the Commission, as I have set out, and we are looking forward to seeing the new document that comes out of the Commission after Christmas, but the EDA is not a threat. It is a low-budget organisation, which, in the words of its last director, is basically a speed-dating agency. It enables European countries that are interested in a particular area to sit together, discuss things and find ways of saving money. I mentioned helicopter training as an example. It is not a threat in the way that he describes. There are some threats potentially coming out of the Commission, although I do not think they are as bad as they were a year or two ago, and I outlined some of them in my speech, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that that is not one of them.
Mr Spellar
May I take the Minister back to shipbuilding? Will he tell us what naval shipbuilding capacity there still is in France, Germany and Spain, which are all exporting to a number of other countries? I am not sure about Italy. Germany and Italy also have major civilian capacity in building cruise ships. What are the Government doing, apart from buying ships from South Korea, to help that position?
Mr Brazier
What we are doing about it is that we have the largest set of naval shipbuilding orders placed of any European country. Each of the major European countries chooses, as we do, to place all its warship orders with its domestic market. Merchant shipbuilding capacity in this country and all its major features had disappeared long before the coalition Government took office—little of it was left in 2010, let alone 2015—but the reality is that we are placing a whole series of very large orders for naval shipbuilding.
Mr Spellar
Was it not the case that with the vessels referred to on the civil side an offer was in fact made by an Italian company to undertake the design work, with the build in UK yards, but that offer was spurned by Ministry of Defence officials?
Mr Brazier
I will have to write to the right hon. Gentleman unless—[Interruption.] Ah, I have a note coming, so I shall respond to him in a little while.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I want to come back to what I was asking about before. I absolutely accept the Minister’s argument about article 346, which is extremely important. My concern is that if we involve the EU in helpful restructuring of the defence industry, rather than leaving it as a domestic competence, the EU is then getting access to an area from which it has previously been kept out but that is within its normal areas of competence. That extends to the discussions of whether exports should be looked at by the European Union, which the Defence Committee and the Government rejected, but is being proposed—
The Chair
Order. This is question time. There is an opportunity for debate later, but it is questions now.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a question, Mr Hanson. Sorry, it was quite a long question.
Mr Brazier
I will answer both questions—I am now in a position to answer the question but by the right hon. Member for Warley. The short answer is that the Italian offer was too expensive. There is always that decision to make. In placing defence orders, we sometimes buy abroad, but those for core warships are always placed in this country, as they always have been by all Governments, whether Conservative, Labour or coalition. In that case, it was simply too expensive.
In answer to my hon. Friend, I absolutely understand his point, but I assure him that that is not a risk. Let me say that again: nobody—repeat, nobody—is giving the European Commission any kind of competence in the area. What we have agreed to is voluntary—it is a voluntary agreement, of which Denmark has chosen not to be part—and that is to be part of the EDA, which offers speed-dating opportunities that can assist the market in clearing up overcapacity. So it will help bring together companies that can work together usefully to save money, sometimes to agree reciprocal purchase—“We’ll buy some of that from you, rather than developing it ourselves, if you buy this from us,” and so on. It is speed dating through the EDA and not the Commission developing any kind of Commission competence, a subject on which I entirely agree with him.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Therefore, that is entirely intergovernmental, and the institutions of the European Union, such as the Court of Justice and the Commission, are not involved. Is that correct?
Mr Brazier
The EDA is an intergovernmental agreement. Denmark is not a member, although Denmark is a member of the EU. I tried to make it clear from the beginning of my speech that the Government’s policy is to stop the Commission from expanding its competencies. From time to time we review our membership of the EDA; it has a small budget, which is doing useful work in a number of areas. It has saved us money—I mentioned two or three of the areas where it has done so—but we are not allowing the Commission to develop an industrial or a defence industrial policy for Europe. We have no intention of doing so.
Mr Jenkin
It is interesting how much assertion and denial has to be done to explain why it is in our interest to be involved with this at all, but I commend my hon. Friend for starving the EDA of the cash that it craves. Other member states would willingly vote for that, but we use our veto to prevent it, which certainly keeps things in check to a degree. However, will he clarify why, when every strategic defence review from 1998 onwards described, as he just did, NATO as the cornerstone of our defence, the 2010 SDSR did not?
Mr Brazier
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments on my exercise of the veto last year. My noble Friend Earl Howe is going over to do that next week. The short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is that I do not know. I congratulate him on his observation, and I would be surprised if NATO was not pretty central to the next SDSR.
Mr Jenkin
I am most grateful for that assurance. Rather than repeating what the 2010 review said—it referred to
“our status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leading member of NATO, the EU and other international organisations”,
as though NATO and the EU were pari passu with each other—may I suggest to the Minister that we include the words, “NATO is the cornerstone of our defence” in the 2015 SDSR?
The Chair
Order. Before the Minister answers, I remind the Committee that we are dealing with European document No. 11358/14, “A New Deal for European Defence”. Although matters relating to 2010 may have relevance to the wider debate, the focus of questions should be on that document.
Mr Brazier
Thank you, Mr Hanson. I shall relay my hon. Friend’s suggestion immediately back to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State.
Martin John Docherty
I do not know about anyone else, but I never thought I would hear a Committee talk about speed-dating and defence, but there is a first time for everything. Going back to the EDA and the document, the Defence Committee sees the EDA as
“pragmatic, cost-effective and results-orientated”.
As a matter of fact, in terms of national security and the national agenda, nations such as Norway are members of the EDA and not part of the European Union. I do not see why this last hurrah of the empire seems to be so problematic for the Minister.
Mr Brazier
I do not think I have got an answer for that beyond saying that I and the Government share the concerns of some on this Committee, as I made absolutely clear in my opening remarks, that there may be an attempt by the Commission to extend its competencies. We have resisted that at every stage, and may have to do so again shortly after Christmas. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the EDA. It has produced a series of good ideas for small-scale savings which offer a good return on money. It is not a threat.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to belabour the point, but in the document, “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, A New Deal for European Defence”, the introduction sets out that the ambition is
“an Internal Market for Defence”.
That is what I am so concerned about, and I hope that the Government are clearly rejecting that. The thing about European exceptions is that they cease to be useable if they are not enforced the whole time. I may give examples of that in a speech later.
Mr Brazier
I do not think I can add a great deal to what I have already said. We support the internal market. This is not an industrial policy; it is about pushing back trade barriers. The Government support that and see it as an extremely positive thing for us and our fellow countries in Europe. We are quite clear that we have this exemption for defence, and we have deployed it a number of times. It covers roughly 10% of our defence procurement effort, and we have never once been challenged on it. Competitors are normally the ones who would make a challenge, and no one has ever tried to challenge Her Majesty’s Government’s exercising of their rights on that.
Bob Stewart
I am looking at the document, which states:
“The Council reiterates its call to retain and further develop military capabilities for sustaining and enhancing CSDP. They underpin the EU’s ability to act as a security provider”—
the EU’s ability to act as a security provider—
“in the context of a wider comprehensive approach”
and
“the need for a strong and less fragmented European defence industry to sustain and enhance Europe’s military capabilities and”—
this is key—
“the EU’s…autonomous action”,
presumably in this respect. I question whether this is yet another move towards an EU defence capacity.
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, but I can only repeat what I said earlier. The EU provides collective defence capability in a small number of niche areas where NATO has chosen not to. I have mentioned several times, because it is of particular national interest to us as a country that still has a significant merchant fleet, the joint EU action off the horn of Africa, which has been a triumph—piracy there has virtually stopped. It is run from Northwood by the British, although, I am sorry to say, we have not had much in the way of naval vessels in it in the past year or two. The French-led operation in Mali is another such example. I thought that the willingness of EU countries to get together occasionally and tackle issues that NATO, for one reason or another, chooses not to was relatively uncontroversial.
The first half of my hon. and gallant Friend’s quote on Europe’s defence capability is true. The industries are in the individual countries and the policy remains a member state matter. We have made it absolutely clear—I do not think I could have made it clearer—that we have resisted successfully every attempt by the Commission to try to dictate to us in this area.
Mr Brazier
I will have to wait for official advice on that. I will return to it during the debate.
The Chair
We will have an opportunity during the debate to include that should we so wish. Does any other Member want to ask a question?
Mr Jenkin
The answer to my question is that I believe they are and that there is no exclusion from the European Court of Justice. The European Defence Agency statute, established by article whatever it is, includes provision for qualified majority voting in a very substantial number of areas, which includes, as I will explain later, permanent structured co-operation and majority voting, from which we could be excluded or subject to qualified majority voting. These are serious potential developments. Does my hon Friend not understand the risk of participating in this at all?
Mr Brazier
I hear what my hon. Friend says and I will come back to him later on his detailed points. I can only remind him that article 346, which is justiciable in the European Court of Justice—there have been a number of cases, although I believe there has not been a recent one—is something we have never been challenged on. It is, to put it mildly, something we would take a very tough line on if we ever were.
Martin John Docherty
I draw Members’ attention to page 71 of the documentation, which contains a letter from the Minister to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It stipulates that
“as part of EU-NATO co-operation”—
I hope that Members take note—
“hybrid and strategic communications were prioritised, as part of an overall response to Russia and threats in the wider EU neighbourhood”.
I am sure the Minister agrees that the EDA’s programme and possible engagement in that process was more than welcome then, and I am sure Members will agree more than welcome in future. It is not a threat to our national security.
Mr Brazier
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is right. There is a wider point, and I urge some of my colleagues, even those who are—I entirely respect their point of view—profoundly opposed to everything that comes out of Brussels, just to think about this one point. The issue with the Russians and Ukraine has to be seen on a whole spectrum, from the hard end right through to the soft end. NATO does not do things such as economic sanctions, so there are areas where we have to talk to our fellow members of the EU if we want action, and I have participated in some of those discussions. There is room for discussing issues that are on the edges of debate but outside the main NATO remit in a European context.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from hon. Members, we will proceed to the main debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11358/14, a Commission Report: A New Deal for European Defence: Implementation Roadmap for Communication COM(2013)542: Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector; agrees that any further development of the Commission’s proposals in the defence sector must be in close cooperation with EU Member States; and shares the Government’s view that the focus for any Commission action should be on improving competitiveness and economic growth, while avoiding any activity that could constrain the UK’s ability to obtain the best capability for its Armed Forces, conflict with NATO, or otherwise impinge upon the UK’s national security interests.—(Mr Brazier.)
Mr Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I stand before the Committee as a pro-European and I will be arguing for this country to remain a member of the EU, but the document before us today demonstrates how the EU is extending itself into areas that mean that it tests the patience even of Europhiles such as myself.
The debate around European defence is a long one. It goes back to the end of the second world war, the foundation of the Western European Union and the treaty of Brussels. We had arguments then about standardisation of equipment and pooling of defence capabilities across Europe. I agree that a cornerstone of our defence should be NATO, but even though this document reflects that, there is a way—I suspect that some Conservative Members will see this as another wicked plot from across the sea—of influencing the sovereign capability and decision making of this country. It is clear that defence matters should be for individual nation states in Europe to decide, and I understand that that is what the Government are arguing in their response to the document, but I have a problem with some of the things that are coming forward.
The first item in the document is that the Commission’s aim is to have an internal market for the defence industry. Thanks to the actions of the previous Labour Government, of which you were a member, Mr Hanson, we have one of the most open and competitive defence markets anywhere in the world. We have only to look at the companies that have now based themselves here or worked with existing capacity here to see why we have that open and competitive market. Finmeccanica, Thalys, Boeing and General Dynamics are just a few of them, and that is because the Labour Government’s approach was that our market should be open not just to Europe, but to the world. I argue strongly that this country, in terms of defence capability, has benefited from that process. The danger with the approach taken in this document is that we look at defence or defence manufacturing as though a fence can be put around it in terms of just Europe. That is not the case. It is a global, international market these days.
Mr Spellar
My hon. Friend rightly identifies some of the benefits from engaging with the wider defence industry. However, there has to be some payback for that—some degree of equity. Does he therefore share my frustration at the failure of the United States in this regard? Despite the fact that Brimstone is far and away the most effective weapon—it is favoured, actually, by the United States air force—it is being blocked within the system because of narrow industrial interests. Does that not cast a slight shadow over the wider co-operation that my hon. Friend rightly identified and welcomed?
Mr Jones
It does. My right hon. Friend and I spent a week in Washington trying to persuade US Congressmen and Senators to make sure that there was nothing wrong in ensuring that technology transfers should be a two-way street. The problem is that although a lot of claims are made about the US defence market being open and transparent, anyone with experience of it knows that protection is clear.
Such protection, however, comes up in Europe. The document talks about overcapacity in the European defence industries, but there is a reason for that: the protectionist policies of certain members, including France, Germany and others. They have not opened up their markets, not only not to US and international competitors, but also not to UK companies. There have been some good examples, as the Minister rightly pointed out, of good defence co-operation and manufacture between European nations and our own, which have been of benefit to not only those nations, but ours.
The objective, according to the document, of
“an Internal Market for Defence where European companies can operate freely and without discrimination in all Member States”,
is frankly pie in the sky. The idea that the French defence market or shipbuilding industry, for example, will be open to competition throughout Europe is unrealistic. A few years ago in Paris, when I was a member of the Defence Committee, I asked the Member for Brest whether she envisaged a French aircraft carrier being built anywhere other than Brest. She looked at me quizzically and said, “I don’t understand the question.”
The Commission is pressing forward in that area, and that has real dangers for our defence industries. It is not, frankly, an area in which the Commission should be getting involved. I fully support, as the Minister does, existing co-operation in the EU for operations that lie outside NATO or involving other countries, but that is where it should stay. If the market comes into our defence industries, that will block off a lot of the opportunities that this country has for co-operation not only with the United States, which is an important market, but with other growing markets around the world. For example, in the south-east Asian market, the easy transfer between civilian technologies and defence ones brings capabilities that could benefit our defence industries. If they are somehow locked out, because our procurement is restricted to Europe, not only will our defence industries suffer, but so could what is on offer to the men and women of our armed forces.
Martin John Docherty
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that in counterbalancing our defence relationship with the United States, we should continue to build relationships with European partners such as the Netherlands? I am sure he agrees that building those relationships can only benefit our security.
Mr Jones
I do, but it is naive to think that we are talking only about Europe. Increasingly as the lines between the development of civilian technologies and defence get blurred, defence industries and technologies are a global market. The idea that we can somehow restrict that to within Europe, or give Europe some preference, would be a great disadvantage to our defence industries. As I said, because of the open approach that we took in government, we have benefited from open markets, which have certainly added to investment from overseas into this country, but also to transfers of technologies and expertise, not only ensuring that the kit and capabilities of our armed forces are leading edge, but adding to jobs and prosperity in this country.
My other issue comes under the second point about security of supply. We have already talked about hand grenade shells in connection with security of supply within Europe. I am not quite sure how this would fit in with technology such as the joint strike fighter, which we are involved in developing and building, and which contains both UK and US technology. Perhaps that is a bad example, but there are other technologies. If we have to ensure that technologies are supplied within Europe, that would limit the ability of some of our partners to co-operate with us. I do not think—how can I put it gently?—that the trust we have in the US defence community, for example, is the same as the trust we have when we export technology to France or any of our other European allies. Does security of supply mean that the onus is on us to supply certain technologies if a European country demanded it? That would put real constraints on us.
Mr Brazier
I agree with quite a lot of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It will not surprise him that we share concerns, and I hope I made it clear that we are heading off many of them. However, on the issue he just raised, I am puzzled about his reasoning. I cannot see anything that would enable that. Can he explain what he means?
Mr Jones
It is not clear from the document. However, if we are saying that there has got to be security of supply for a certain piece of technology, we would have to ensure that widget A is available to all European nations. If widget A contains technology that is procured from a third country with which we have a partnership, will we, because we are part of this process, have to export it or send it to a third country in Europe that needs it? That is the danger. At the moment, we have a choice about whether we do that, based on the relationship we entered into in the first place. As the Minister knows, we have certain technologies that we would not export, even to some of our allies in Europe. That is my concern.
Mr Brazier
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. The short answer is no, we would not agree to that. Nothing that we are agreeing to could ever put us in that position.
Mr Jones
The other point I would like to touch on is the reference to third markets and the idea that the European Commission has a role in promoting defence exports. It is very strange that the document again misses the entire point when it says:
“With defence budgets shrinking in Europe in recent years, exports to third markets have become increasingly important for European industry to compensate for reduced demand on home markets.”
It completely ignores the fact that it is not that the defence industry cannot produce. It does not question the fact that many countries do not meet the NATO 2% and that budgets have continued to be cut across Europe. I am concerned about the idea that the Commission has a role in exporting to third markets. The Commission is living in a fantasy world if it is trying to suggest that this will put a brake on the bargaining between, for example, French and UK defence exporters, and that one would export something and the other would not.
Look at the current competition for fast jets in the middle east and elsewhere. It is not the case that the French are not acting in their national self-interest, as they always do. What is being said here, and why does the Commission want to get involved in something it does not need to? Is it trying to create a level playing field, and will the inducements and other things that are put forward not be allowable to ensure that two European nations competing for a defence contract in the middle east, for example, do so on the same basis? I do not think that is the Commission’s role, and, frankly, if that is what is being suggested, it would be very difficult to implement.
The other side to that, which is also completely missed, is that purchaser nations increasingly require and want some development of technologies within their country as part of defence and export contracts, which is only right. That takes me to my final point, which is that I do not accept that offsets are a bad thing. If a sovereign nation is to procure equipment from overseas or another competitor, it is quite right that it should be able to demand some offset for taxpayers’ money either being spent in their country or benefiting the home nation.
In conclusion, I worry about the document, because it has clearly taken the time of many a Brussels bureaucrat to draw it up, but to what end? It would be strange if we ever saw the French open up their defence markets to true competition. There is no evidence for that, and it just will not happen. The Opposition support such operations in terms of co-operation across Europe, but we need to be wary about the Commission getting into areas in which it should not be, and about our defence industry, which has been good at adapting and changing over the past few years, being put at a disadvantage. There would be nothing to gain in both jobs and technology. The important thing that we must always bear in mind is that the equipment and kit that we provide to our armed forces is not only fit for purpose, but the best available.
Mr Jenkin
When considering this instrument, it is worth noting first that the document is dated 26 June 2014. That we are dealing with it at such a late stage is an indication of how poor our scrutiny arrangements are and how incapable we are as a Parliament at keeping up with developments in the European Union.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The document was recommended for debate by the European Scrutiny Committee about a year ago. The coalition Government refused to send documents for debate, and a huge backlog built up. Much of that is now being cleared by this Government, and I hope that more work will be done. It was not a failure of our processes; I am afraid it was a failure of Her Majesty’s Government.
Mr Jenkin
I am very grateful for that information and I am sure the Committee is, too. I was about to say that this is the first occasion, apart from a Government statement after the 2013 Council of Ministers meeting, that we have debated the 2013 conclusions in any depth. That underlines a serious state of affairs.
Mr Brazier
I remind my hon. Friend that I started with an apology for the tardiness of the debate. To answer his earlier question, it is true that the EDA does operate, as he suggested, on a qualified majority vote basis. In matters that are deemed to be important for national sovereignty, however, any member can escalate the matter up to the Council of Ministers, where it must be agreed by unanimity. The practical effect is therefore not as he imagines.
Mr Jenkin
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has received that reassurance, but, as I will explain, it is not worth very much. The fundamental problem is that our Government like to pretend that the EU’s common security and defence policy is harmless intergovernmental co-operation that has no access to money or legal sanctions and is therefore a federalist paper tiger. The 2013 Council conclusions actually give the lie to that, and any Conservative Prime Minister should have been wholly opposed to them. To sign the UK up to the programme in the document is not just another step towards a Europe army, which has always been a dream of federalist nations such as Germany, but another blow to our already beleaguered defence industries and another nail in the NATO coffin, in order that continental defence industries should not be exposed to US competition.
Much of the 2013 conclusions appears to be the usual verbiage and high-flown rhetoric about the EU being a “global player” in defence and about the
“strong commitment to the further development of a credible and effective CSDP”.
The understatement:
“Defence budgets in Europe are constrained”
is a feeble attempt to mask the reality that member states, including the UK, are all cutting their defence budgets. The oft-repeated plea to “make use of synergies”—a common theme of such documents—to improve capabilities has so far proved a forlorn hope. The invocation of increasing the effectiveness, visibility and impact of CSDP is bound to fail.
It is almost entirely down to France and the United Kingdom that EU defence means anything at all. We work increasingly bilaterally with the French, and other operations are NATO operations under an EU flag. NATO remains far more significant because it has US backing, and its people at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe are practised at planning and generating force for multinational operations. However, NATO gets its first mention only as a “partner” in paragraph 6 of the 2013 conclusions alongside the UN, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the African Union—as though NATO were equivalent to the African Union. There is mention of
“strategic partners and partner countries”,
but it is telling that the EU cannot bring itself to name the United States of America, the one military entity that dominates the world and the sole guarantor of European security. That underlines the squeamishness, futility, parochialism and vanity of CSDP.
The potential to damage UK defence interests is in the detail. The call for an EU cyber-defence policy framework and for an EU maritime security strategy both involve the federalist EU Commission. Remember, the Commission is the EU’s most powerful legislative body, so, if the Commission is involved, that is anything but intergovernmental co-operation.
To agree to that is to agree to a threat to the independence of UK policy in those fields. The fact that the Council will also call for
“increased synergies between CSDP and Freedom/Security/Justice actors”
opens the door to legally binding defence commitments to
“tackle horizontal issues such as organized crime, including trafficking and smuggling of human beings, and terrorism”.
A lot of that is already firmly in in the Commission’s legislative purview. That is another compelling reason for the UK to exercise its Lisbon treaty opt-out from EU home and justice affairs, which unfortunately we spurned last year.
Finally, on military capability development, the EU intends utterly to eclipse NATO, backed by the two legally binding 2009 defence procurement directives that enhance the power of the European Defence Agency, which is becoming an embryo EU defence ministry. The EDA’s statute enables decisions to be taken by majority voting, and, where any single state can threaten a veto, a subset of member states can act unilaterally as a bloc in the name of the whole of the EU—that is what they call structure co-operation.
EU defence is not so much about defence—because, as we see, defence expenditure across the continent is declining—as it is about protectionism of continental defence industrial interests whose technology rather lags behind their US counterparts. The Council proposes support for remotely piloted aircraft systems—a squeamish name for what we call drones or unmanned aerial vehicles—air-to-air refuelling, satellite communication and cyber. In at least two of these areas, air-to-air refuelling and cyber, the UK is already supreme in the EU—we have, for example, GCHQ in Cheltenham—so why should we agree to the EU directing our policy? That is what this amounts to. For all those capabilities, US interoperability is essential for the UK, but there is nothing in these documents about co-operation with our closest ally, because EU defence is about excluding the US wherever possible. That is why NATO is not an acceptable vehicle for those who want European integration.
In the 2013 conclusions, we read that the Council
“invites the Commission (again), the European Investment Bank and the European Defence Agency to develop proposals for a pooled acquisition mechanism”,
which can only mean some kind of EU defence purchasing agency. It may not require much money to develop legal control over member states’ defence procurement programmes. How so? The proposals for
“strengthening Europe's defence industry”
are to be
“in full compliance with EU law”.
This is not intergovernmental. The Commission again is invited
“to set up a Preparatory Action on CSDP-related research”.
Finally,
“The European Defence Agency, in cooperation with the Commission (yet again), will prepare a roadmap for the development of defence industrial standards”
which is what we are looking at today, and
“develop a harmonized European military certification approach”.
Those are the key means by which the EU can obtain control over defence. One of the key purposes of NATO was to ensure transatlantic standards and certification to ensure interoperability. The EU is duplicating that role in order to create its own separate and distinct standards that are not compatible with our US counterparts.
Again, on this question of certification and standards there is no reference whatever to EU-US co-operation, which would make sense. That is because the EU wants standards and certification that will exclude US defence equipment from EU markets wherever possible. That is what EU defence policy is really about.
I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall not be voting to take note of this document and will vote against if the opportunity arises.
Martin John Docherty
Thank you, Mr Hanson, for the opportunity to address a Committee of the House for the first time. I am taking a range of issues from the debate. I do not think there is general disagreement with some of the points that the document makes about procurement and opening up markets. I think there will be broad agreement on those. My concern, speaking on behalf of the third party in the House, is the wider impact of this discussion on the broad relationships that are critical to the future of our defence planning and military partnerships. For example, the only members of EDA who are not members of NATO are Finland and Sweden, and I am sure hon. Members will agree that they do not pose a grave threat to the national security of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For all the talk of national security today, it should be put on the record that the only threat to the UK’s national interest is this debate, as it seems to be dragging us back to the issue of European Union membership, which this should not be about.
There has been some comment about NATO being the cornerstone of our defence. Of course it is; I do not think there is any disagreement on that and that will never change. However, to say that the cornerstone of our economic security, the European Union, does not have a role to play in military security—with the vast majority of EDA members being members of NATO—is wilfully naïve. Forgive me, but that sounds a bit of an empire’s last hurrah.
There is an element of condescension in saying that EU cannot offer anything to UK military capability. We are doing ourselves a disservice and undermining the many years of co-operation between ourselves and our vital European allies, both in and not in NATO. I and my Scottish National party colleagues have spoken to our allies, who are aghast at the idea of the debate on taking the UK out of the EU, away from what has been the safest economic ability for 70 years. Our allies want us in and putting our weight behind our membership, and today’s report is an important way to acknowledge that.
I struggle to understand many of the objections to the document from hon. Members. The financial benefits are clear. As I mentioned earlier, quoting the document, the EDA is
“pragmatic, cost-effective and results-orientated”
as the Minister himself agreed. The United Kingdom Government have signed up to the letter of intent committing us to this very sort of defence integration. Working alongside our NATO allies and its programmes such as smart defence, we can make the types of economic savings, allied with the sort of commitments to jobs here in the UK that tie in very nicely with the UK Government’s stated prosperity agenda. That type of co-operation with our closest allies saves us money, so why are we so shy about being involved in it?
It is not as though the United Kingdom does not need to fill the capability gaps that this co-operation seeks to fill as well. My colleagues and I have been very critical—forgive me for going on about it yet again, to gasps across the room—of the lack of marine patrol activity to support our armed services. This type of document is designed to address such shortfalls, which may begin to affect our relationships with our allies, particularly as we face the emerging threats that we do.
As we see an increase in the Russian Federation’s activity close to our shores, it is increasingly obvious that they are knowingly—I make this quite clear—exploiting the weaknesses in NATO’s institutional ability to respond to threats. Can the European Union do something to help in that regard? I do not see why not. This July, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office highlighted the importance of increased EU-NATO co-operation in mitigating the threat we face from the new types of hybrid warfare that we see being practised, critically by the Russian Federation.
I see no threat from a deep and in-depth partnership with our European allies that seeks to strengthen our ability to deal with continuing threats by sharing expertise and knowledge. I see no threat from a document that could help us to increase our security, make efficiency savings and play a leading role in Europe. I look around and see very little appetite to lead us in Europe. What I do see, however, is what The Guardian this week called a crisis in British foreign policy. I see a pandering to this “last hurrah of the Ukippers” mentality that is doing us no favours.
If the United Kingdom is not careful, we will find this political state falling even further behind in the fields of research and development, over and above our addiction to Trident, and with its possible renewal we limit our ambition and ability to hold at bay those security risks that we now face. I am sure that you will be in no doubt, Mr Hanson, of the Scottish National party’s commitment to working with all our allies, and that includes the rest of the European Union, to promote improved access to research, preserving jobs and saving money through synergies with our closest allies across the European Union and NATO. That does not do a disservice to the United States; I am sure that they would welcome it as well.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire on his maiden speech in a Committee, and say what a pleasure it was to hear that the Scottish National party is now committed to NATO? I thought that used to be in some doubt, but clearly not. Times change.
There are some clear points surrounding this whole debate. The first is that the official bodies of the European Union want to develop more a common defence policy and want to see themselves, or the European Union, as the main form of defence within the EU. I quote in evidence, from the papers before us today, the letter from the Minister to the Chairman of European Scrutiny Committee dated 23 July, so it is reasonably up to date. It is about the High Representative’s report on CSDP and is on page 73 of the bundle. It is useful to remember that Federica Mogherini is not only the High Representative but Vice-President of the Commission and head of the European Defence Agency, so a number of hats are being worn together—I assume that she does not have one on top of the other, but perhaps there are bows coming out of her hat.
What the Minister said in relation to the report—in criticism of it—was fourfold. He said:
“The report did not bring out clearly enough that Member States have primacy over defence issues.”
That is important because it is an indication of where the Vice-President of the Commission and the head of the European Defence Agency is trying to push policy—it is about trying to downplay the importance of member states and increasing the role of the European Union.
The second point that the Minister criticises is that
“EU-NATO cooperation was not given enough weight.”
That is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex was making—that the EU is not that keen on NATO and sees itself to some extent as a committee.
The third point of disagreement—in a way, the nub of what today’s debate has been about—was:
“The proposals on the role of the EDA went beyond what Member States have previously agreed”.
That is central because it is what we have seen in every development of European policy. The whole way the EU has developed from the European Economic Community in 1972 when we joined is by the Commission pushing forward particular issues and taking them beyond what has been agreed, which is what I think the Green Paper does as well, to try to extend EU competence.
The fourth point of disagreement is that
“There was insufficient evaluation of the value added by CSDP missions and operations.”
Even in the absence of evidence of it being useful, the aim is for more Europeanisation. So that is the first point surrounding the debate—that the aim of the EU is clear.
The second point is that what is going on in defence and has gone on in defence is, in the broad European context, highly unusual. Although it is exempt from competition policy, from some of the requirements of the single market and, indeed, trade policy, trade policy is the exclusive competence of the EU with the exception of defence, so that in the ordinary business of the EU, a lot of what is exceptional in defence procurement is ordinary in everything else—it is basically EU competence.
That leaves the third point, which is held by a horsehair thread as far as I can see—article 346. The Minister is right to rely on that, to be robust on it and to remind the Committee that it has not been challenged, as far as the UK is concerned, by the Commission. Where I diverge from him is that I think when we look at the broad policy background, we look at the ambition of the EU, and all we have to defend defence procurement is article 346. We should be incredibly cautious about any development of policy in the context of the EU that allows for more activity in the defence field.
The Minister said that he thought that it was broadly uncontroversial for EU nation states to combine for defence purposes. I do not disagree with that for a moment, with one caveat, which is that it is on an intergovernmental basis and not under the auspices of the EU.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree with that, although I think that the Government should have the right to be protectionist in relation to defence procurement. I am not sure it is always wise to be protectionist. I am a supporter of having bought ships from South Korea. That was a sensible thing to have done in the broader context. I am in favour of maintaining freedom of activity rather than saying that it is always wrong to buy from overseas.
The final point I am making is that intergovernmental co-operation is admirable. When we are dealing with issues that NATO does not want to deal with, it makes complete sense to co-operate with our nearest neighbours and to use that projection of force where it can be used. I absolutely agree with the Minister that on the issue of Ukraine, a variety of agencies needed to be involved, but what never needed to happen was for defence to come under the auspices of the EU, formally or informally. It is a great protection from the general ratchet effect of what happens in the EU if the Minister is robust. I am reassured that we have one of the most robust Ministers before the Committee today.
Mr Brazier
We have had an exceptionally thoughtful debate. If I am honest, very little has been said that I did not agree with. I will start with the comments of the hon. Member for North Durham, who I have known for many years in the House of Commons. I agree with most of what he said. I reassure him that we are never going to be compelled to sell secret technology, which was one thing he raised. Clearly, if we have developed it collaboratively, there may be an issue of stopping the other partner who owns it, but we will not be forced to release our own secrets. Security of supply is never going to be laid down by the European Commission. I remind the hon. Gentleman and one or two of my hon. Friends that the 2% commitment, which I strongly support—it is a matter of record that I gave up my position as a junior Government Parliamentary Private Secretary many years ago over defence cuts, which created absolutely no interest out in the wider world at all—is a NATO standard to which five NATO countries adhere. It is not an EU matter. Also, there is no Commission role on exports. We are not going to give way on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex made a typically, if I may say so, extremely well researched and thorough speech. He knows perfectly well that I share some of his concerns. Indeed, I made it clear in my speech that the Government have had to repeatedly fight against a number of the threats he mentioned. We were the country that insisted the Secretary-General of NATO was invited to the European Council in December 2013. He also came to the Council’s discussion of defence in June this year. He has also been invited by Federica Mogherini to the EDA. We are not alone in this, but we as a country are absolutely determined not only that NATO should have primacy on defence, but that, when European countries get together to discuss defence, it should be seen as a complement to the European position rather than a competitor.
My hon. Friend raised the spectre of the Commission curtailing or interfering with our procurement relationships in a way that would never be acceptable to this Government. We will not accept curtailment of our ability to procure the best kit for our armed forces—I am reading that straight out of my “lines to take”, to reassure my hon. Friend that it is not just the Minister saying something off the hoof. We are not going to give way on that, and we have had to fight off a number of threats, as I made clear earlier. We are not going to give way on article 346 and have not been challenged on upholding it.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire made a number of points. He made one strong point: when we are faced with hybrid warfare, as we are with the Russians, we have to be clear that NATO does not pretend to cover the full spectrum. It does not do so, and it is as simple as that. It covers a large part of the spectrum but does not cover all of it, and economic sanctions are not something that NATO wants to lead on. There is a role for the EU in supporting NATO. I was there for some of the discussions on Ukraine, and we were clear that that is what the EU was supposed to be doing.
I know the hon. Gentleman to be a thoughtful Member, and we have sat opposite each other a number of times, but I do not think he will find much agreement on some of the other parts of his speech. We all agree that the maritime patrol aircraft leaves a gap. We had to take some agonising decisions in 2010. We are just about to announce a new SDSR, and it is above my pay grade to comment further. I have not seen the document yet, but I can say that we are very much aware of the issues he raises.
I am afraid I find the hon. Gentleman’s position on NATO and nuclear weapons completely unintelligible. NATO was set up to defend the west against the threat from the Soviet Union after America and Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons had bought us a time interval to make it possible. Had we not had nuclear weapons then, there is a pretty fair chance that our exhausted Army and an American public who already felt they had done enough would have fallen foul of the massive might of the Soviet Union. A clear availability of nuclear weapons bought the time to enable NATO to be established, and it has been a nuclear alliance ever since. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest in one breath that his party is in favour of NATO and in another that it strongly remains opposed to nuclear weapons—
The Chair
Order. I appreciate that the Minister is responding to the debate, but the aftermath of the second world war and the development of nuclear weapons are not part of the document before us today.
Mr Brazier
I accept your rebuke, Mr Hanson. I was led astray.
I share many of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He made some strong points about the Commission’s agenda, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. We are clear that there is and has been an agenda. We will go carefully through the document that we are promised is just a few weeks’ away to see what is in there. We think that the agenda is probably not as strong as it was a year or two ago. It certainly is not as strong among the member states that were supporting the Commission earlier. I find the atmosphere among a large number of member states to be remarkably pro our agenda, but there is a danger, and I will not conceal it, and nor does the motion. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset to give us the benefit of the doubt. We are determined to resist those elements of the agenda that threaten our national sovereignty in defence.
My principal point remains that our engagement in this area is firmly shaped by what is and is not in our national interests. We will continue to engage robustly with the Commission to protect and promote our interests, working directly with the Commission and/or our international partners as appropriate. Our interests rest in a more open and competitive defence market that respects our legitimate national security interests, and the Commission can help in delivering that.
A more efficient defence industry in Europe is fundamental to delivering capabilities to our armed forces for better value for money, while also promoting economic growth. I gave a number of examples of small areas where we have achieved significant savings as a result of our participation. The UK defence industry is particularly well placed to take advantage of a more open market—several Members have paid tribute to the strength of the UK defence sector—that is more global and increasingly connected to the dual-use sector.
We must, however, avoid action that seeks to protect the defence industry in Europe from the wider global market. I agree with the remarks about the Americans and how we must never allow people to shut out the Americans, of which there was a hint. There is no European defence industry as such. Instead, we have one that is local, national and global. We need to avoid policies or regulations that seek to create such an unnatural European identity when it does not exist in reality.
The elements of our national interest are set out in the detail of the motion. We will seek to ensure that any Commission activity is undertaken only in close association with ourselves and other member states. We will make the case that the Commission’s focus must be on those activities that support the competitiveness of the defence industry and promote wider growth. That is in our favour, because we have a strong, healthy defence industry. We will not allow actions that interfere, constrain or otherwise limit our ability to procure the best capability for our armed forces. We will not support any action that seeks to undermine NATO or the transatlantic relationship, which are the cornerstone of our defence. We will not support actions that seek to isolate the EU defence market from an increasingly global market, except where security is at stake. That is an important balance.
There are some opportunities in the EU, and I mentioned a few of them, but we must remain vigilant to those who would undermine our wider security and economic interests. I urge one or two of my colleagues—I know that they have thought long and hard on this matter and that they are very good friends of the armed forces—to look at the motion on its merits and at what we are discussing today, rather than considering the motion against a background of much wider debate on the EU and allowing considerations that have nothing to do with the motion to sway them. I urge the Committee to support the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 11358/14, a Commission Report: A New Deal for European Defence: Implementation Roadmap for Communication COM(2013)542: Towards a more competitive and efficient defence and security sector; agrees that any further development of the Commission’s proposals in the defence sector must be in close cooperation with EU Member States; and shares the Government’s view that the focus for any Commission action should be on improving competitiveness and economic growth, while avoiding any activity that could constrain the UK’s ability to obtain the best capability for its Armed Forces, conflict with NATO, or otherwise impinge upon the UK’s national security interests.
Ministerial Correction
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Duddridge
The consultation that ended yesterday was well received. More than 700 written responses have been received, and officials met more than 500 Chagossians in their own communities in the UK, the Seychelles, Mauritius, Switzerland, France and as far afield as Tasmania.
[Official Report, 28 October 2015, Vol. 601, c. 195WH.]
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the debate on the Chagos Islands on 28 October 2015.
The correct response should have been:
James Duddridge
The consultation that ended yesterday was well received. More than 700 written responses have been received from as far afield as Switzerland, France and Tasmania, and officials met more than 500 Chagossians in their own communities in the UK, the Seychelles and Mauritius.
Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 224, , in schedule 6, page 91, line 37, leave out—
“before the end of such period as may be prescribed.”
To remove provision for a period to be prescribed in regulations, made under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, during which an individual may be left destitute before qualifying for section 95 support on the basis of having lodged “further qualifying submissions”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 225, in schedule 6, page 92, line 6, leave out from “, or” to end of line 8.
To prevent section 95 support from terminating immediately on notification of a decision on further qualifying submissions if no period for support terminating is prescribed in regulations made under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
Keir Starmer
The two amendments are rather technical but none the less important. They deal with the period between a decision being made and support being made available.
The background to amendment 224 is that, under proposed new subsection (2B) under paragraph 3(3) of the schedule, people who have lodged “further qualifying submissions” to the Home Office are defined as asylum seekers and will therefore qualify for full support under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in the same way as those making an initial claim for asylum. That enables support to be provided to that group of people, who at the moment are accommodated under section 4 of the 1999 Act. That section is being repealed.
The drafting of proposed new subsection (2B)(b) and (2B)(c)(ii) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulation a period during which he may consider the further qualifying submissions without being under a duty to provide support. During that period, the individual would remain destitute. Such a situation was subject to litigation in the case of MK and AH, with Refugee Action, which was reported in 2012. The Home Office policy of delaying 15 working days before making a decision on section 4 applications was found to be unlawful. The case led to a policy change, so that decisions under section 4 now have to be made within two days for individuals in vulnerable categories and five days for other people. The amendment would ensure that the principles in the MK case are upheld and that the resulting policy remains broadly in place.
Amendment 226 is also technical and is intended to prevent section 95 support from terminating immediately upon notification of a decision on—
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister, but I think he might have said amendment 226 just then, but that is in the next group. We are discussing amendments 224 and 225 at this stage.
Keir Starmer
Maybe I did. I apologise.
Amendment 225 is intended to prevent individuals and families from being made immediately homeless and destitute on receipt of a decision from the Home Office on their further qualifying submissions. The existing policy allows for 14 days of support if further qualifying submissions are rejected and 21 days if they are accepted. Under proposed new subsection (3A)(b) in paragraph 3(5) of the schedule, however, if no regulations are brought in prescribing the period after which support is terminated, or the individual is not covered by the scenario envisaged in the regulations, support can be terminated immediately.
Essentially, there are three scenarios that are a cause of concern. The first is applicants whose further submissions are accepted and who are granted leave. They would have no time to obtain the documentation they need to apply for mainstream benefits and/or work. Lest anyone thinks that that is a theoretical example, there was the tragic case that a number of Committee members will know of—the case of EG—where support was withdrawn and there was a serious case review, which touched upon the transitional periods when support was not provided under the existing regime. To be fair, I do not think that that was the sole cause of the issue, but it was certainly one of the issues that was flagged up in the serious case review, and obviously everyone wants to ensure that everything is done to ensure that that type of thing does not happen again. EG was a little boy who starved to death in that period. So that is applicants whose further submissions are accepted and are granted leave.
The second group is applicants whose further submissions are treated as a fresh protection claim with a right of appeal. As I understand it, they would have to reapply for support on receiving a decision about their further qualifying submissions, because the Bill provides for the support they were receiving to terminate on the day that the decision is taken. So, as far as they are concerned, there is an interim period.
The third group is applicants whose further submissions are rejected. Until now, they would have had 14 days of support. There is a provision in the Bill—new subsection (3D) under paragraph 3(5) of schedule 6—that provides for support to be continued when
“permission to apply for judicial review is granted”.
Clearly, however, there will be a gap between the decision and any application being made for judicial review, and any permission being granted.
As I say, to some extent, these are technical amendments, but they are important because they deal with periods that until now have been dealt with under policy and guidance, whereby support is not removed during the possible gap period. However, it may be that the Minister can give some assurances that will remove the need for the amendment.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The amendment is a common-sense proposal that will limit a policy that has been shown to be ineffective, costly and inhumane. Personally, I find it extremely frustrating that the Home Office’s own evaluation of the evidence highlights the problems with these proposals—primarily, that they do not work—yet we see the proposals being driven through by the Government regardless. I have to question why the Government are not listening to themselves.
We have heard from local authorities that what these policies end up doing is displacing the cost of support, in some cases from central Government to local government. In other cases, the costs are borne by charities and individuals who give their own income to support asylum seekers.
We have heard once or twice—or 45 times—in the course of our deliberations on the Bill that we have a system that has been shown to be very problematic at the least, and where the accuracy of decision making is at least in question. Given the fluctuating security situation in many countries around the world, the rapid mechanised movements of Daesh being an example, further qualifying submissions could rightly highlight the dangers of returning a citizen to their home country. So it is only right, under our international and moral obligations, that we have scope for further qualifying submissions. We should not be driving people into destitution as punishment for using those, no matter how short the length of time.
If any of us in this room were destitute for one day, we would probably be severely damaged by it. There is a saying that my mother still uses all the time. I do not know if it is a McLaughlin saying, a west of Scotland saying, or just a saying, but it is true that we do not know we are born. I am not seeing many nodding heads—it is not a McLaughlin saying. We do not appreciate what we have got and how it would be so difficult for any of us to go through what we are proposing to put other people through.
If an asylum seeker’s initial case has been decided upon, given the restricted support on offer throughout the case, combined with the length of time for that decision, the risk of grave consequences, including destitution, for those who are not supported for a period after lodging further submissions could be quite catastrophic for that individual and, in my opinion, shameful for these islands. I want no part in that.
That takes me on to amendment 225, which seeks to ensure that those who have received a decision on a claim based on further submissions are not cast into destitution on receipt of their decision. Studies from the Red Cross, the Refugee Council and Freedom from Torture have all found that the existing 28 days for successful claimants is insufficient. The amendment should be treated as a measure to streamline the system. If a claimant is ultimately successful, the grace period will support the obtaining of documentation to begin work. If the claimant is unsuccessful, the proposed grace period will allow the individual to make arrangements to leave the UK and reduce the likelihood of the expense and trauma caused by detention. If compassion is not a motivation, amendment 225 proposes what would be implemented in a system based on best practice and common sense.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We have already had a wide-ranging debate on schedule 6, so I do not intend to return to some of the “in principle” issues of which we have had significant discussion. The two amendments in the group, however, touch on the narrow issue of further submissions and concern how we propose to deal with failed asylum seekers who submit further submissions such that their removal would breach the UK’s obligations under the convention on refugees or under article 3 of the European convention on human rights.
A procedure is set out in paragraph 353 of the immigration rules for dealing with such cases, which broadly results in three possible outcomes for the submissions: outright rejection; rejection, but there is a fresh right of appeal against the decision; or acceptance, and the person is granted leave to remain in the UK. Only about 15% of cases are granted leave to remain. Most are found to be without merit and often merely repeat matters already considered and rejected by the immigration judge who dealt with the asylum appeal.
Under existing arrangements, section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is used to support persons who have made further submissions and who require support if they would otherwise be destitute while the submissions are under consideration. Section 4 is to be repealed by the Bill, but we consider it appropriate to retain a mechanism to support those who have lodged submissions, and the Bill does so by amending section 95 of the 1999 Act in order to provide an avenue of support under that measure, subject to the conditions that I will describe.
The system would be wholly unmanageable if a failed asylum seeker were immediately able to access support solely by lodging further submissions and, if the submissions were to be rejected, to continue to receive that support for a “grace period”—21 days for a single person—before that support is stopped. That would be the impact of the amendments.
To illustrate my point, on day one, the failed asylum seeker might lodge the further submissions and be eligible for support. Then, even if the submissions were rejected on day two, they would be entitled to support for at least another 21 days—longer if children were in the household, up to 28 days—during which time they would be able to lodge fresh submissions and so continue the cycle. Therefore, under schedule 6 to the Bill, the arrangements will not work in that way.
Instead, the person will be eligible for support only if the submissions have remained outstanding for a period set out in regulations. We have not made a final decision on how long that period will be, but we expect it to be five working days in most cases, although there may be issues of vulnerability. The shadow Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, has set out some of the policy framework that will inform that. In effect, the position will remain largely unchanged from current arrangements.
Once submissions are lodged, the person may seek support under section 4(2) of the 1999 Act, but that is normally provided only if a decision on the further submissions and accompanying support application is not made within five working days. Special consideration will continue to be given to cases in which the person is clearly in a vulnerable position, for example because of a disability or in the case of a pregnant woman. In such cases, support is usually granted if a decision on the further submissions is not made within two working days. We expect to continue those special provisions under the new arrangements and will reflect them in the regulations.
Keir Starmer
The Minister has dealt in some detail with the situation if the claim is rejected. As I understand it, if it is accepted, the grace period of 28 days will apply, which covers the first category of people. If that is what the Minister is saying, I am reassured by that and will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 97, in schedule 6, page 92, line 41, leave out “VI” and insert “VI and section 141”.—(James Brokenshire).
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 226, in schedule 6, page 93, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (5),
To allow destitute refused asylum seeking families to continue receiving basic support (just over £5 a day for their essential living needs with housing provided for those with nowhere to live) until their case is finally concluded, as is currently the case. This aims to protect vulnerable children from being left destitute; ensure immigration controls are not undermined because the Home Office has lost contact with families who are appeal rights exhausted; and to avoid a substantial transfer of costs to local authorities.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 227, in schedule 6, page 93, line 38, leave out from “provided)” to end of line 39, and insert—
‘(a) the heading becomes “Support for asylum-seekers, etc”, and
(b) insert after subsection (8)—
“(8A) The weekly cash payment set out in Regulation 2(2) of the Asylum Support (Amendment No.3) Regulations 2015 No. 1501 for each individual is increased to no less than 60% of the rate of Income Support payable to single adults aged 25 or over.”’
To ensure asylum seekers have the support they need to pay for food, clothing, toiletries, travel and other necessities and thereby try to help ensure that they can properly meet their essential living needs and pursue their asylum applications. The amendment works by amending section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which is the overarching section under which support for persons seeking asylum is provided.
Keir Starmer
In earlier debates on clause 34 and schedule 6, we have touched at great length on the subject of amendment 226, which is intended to reverse the removal of support altogether. A number of Committee Members quoted from the available evidence. In those circumstances, I do not propose to dwell heavily on amendment 226, but amendment 227 has not been dealt with.
The rates for asylum seekers supported under section 95 of the 1999 Act were originally set at 70% of income support, on the basis that their accommodation and utility bills would be paid for separately. As of August this year, asylum seekers, including children, on section 95 support who would otherwise be destitute now receive the same flat rate of support, as opposed to varying amounts for single adults, lone parents, families with children and so on. That rate set at just £36.95 a week, or just over £5 a day. A number of groups have looked at that rate of support, which is manifestly very low. In 2013, a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, which took evidence from 150 local authorities, found that
“the levels of support for asylum seeking families are meeting neither children’s essential living needs, nor their wider need to learn and develop. The levels are too low and given that they were not increased in 2012 they should be raised as a matter of urgency and increased annually at the very least in line with income support.”
The inquiry further recommended:
“The rates of support should never fall below 70% of income support.”
The Home Affairs Committee picked up the theme in October 2013, highlighting
“concerns about the level of support available to those who seek asylum in the UK.”
It concluded:
“This relative poverty of those on section 95 support is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of asylum applicants have not legally been allowed to work since 2002.”
We will come to that issue later. Amendment 227 would ensure that any asylum seeker who would otherwise be destitute received no less than 60% of income support, which is currently equal to £43.86 a week.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am going to speak to amendments 226 and 227, because they are both fundamental and speak to the humanity that I believe we have in this country.
I shall speak to amendment 226 first. Our immigration system has long recognised the need to afford special protection to families with children. It is heartening to hear the Minister reaffirm that position. However, the Bill will remove those protections by withdrawing support for refused asylum-seeking families with children. Irrespective of whether families should or should not return to their country of origin, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the wellbeing of children is at the forefront of our asylum policy. The Government, by contrast, are seeking to withdraw all support for children when their parent’s application is refused, and to prevent statutory services from assisting children who become destitute.
The consequences of the complete withdrawal of support are severe. We have heard from witnesses that when refused asylum seekers have their support cut off, it both causes illness and complicates existing health problems. Those effects are even more pronounced given that asylum seekers will have been living below the poverty line, on just over £5 a day, for many months or even years while awaiting a decision. The pilot of section 9 of the Immigration Act 2004, which introduced similar measures, clearly demonstrated their negative impact on the health and wellbeing of refused asylum seekers. Refugee Action and the Refugee Council’s study of the pilot revealed that the majority of families with whom they worked had mental or physical health problems that were exacerbated by section 9. Some 80% of parents were found to have mental health problems and some 36% had significant physical health problems.
The risks to children are worsened still further by the potential to force families into exploitative situations in order to survive. Provisions in the Bill would see the criminalisation of illegal workers, the loss of the right to rent, the closure of bank accounts and the freezing of assets. In such an environment I am gravely concerned that exploitation will increase dramatically and that many of the positive steps made by the Modern Slavery Act 2015 may be fatally undermined.
The Bill will inevitably mean the cost of supporting families being passed to local authorities. The costs will be huge. As asylum seekers are overwhelmingly located in deprived areas, those with the least ability to absorb those costs will be faced with the highest bill. The north of England, for example, has about a third of the UK’s population, but Migration Yorkshire estimates that it will face half the cost. It has also highlighted that the societal impacts of such deprivation will be disproportionately felt in the north of England.
The Government’s view is that the changes are necessary to encourage refused migrants to leave, but a huge weight of evidence, including from the Home Office itself, suggests that that will simply not work. Indeed, the Bill is likely to make effective immigration control still harder. When parents think that their children’s life may be at risk if they return home, whether that fear is justified or not, they will generally opt for destitution in the UK as the lesser of two evils. The impact of the removal of support will be the removal of any incentive for failed migrants to maintain contact with the Home Office. The Bill will not only force migrants from the address at which they were known to the Home Office but ensure that migrants do not contact the Home Office again. How is immigration control to operate under those conditions? How is the Home Office expected to track and ultimately remove migrants with whom it has no contact and for whom it has no address? The Bill fails to address those serious questions.
The findings of the section 9 pilot clearly demonstrate the effect on immigration control of removing support. The Home Office’s own report stated that 39% of migrants from whom support was withdrawn absconded, compared with 21% of those who remained supported. Only one family was successfully removed, compared with nine in the control group, and there was no significant increase in voluntary returns. Section 9 almost doubled the rate of absconding, greatly decreased the chances of successful removal and had no impact whatever on families choosing to leave the UK. How can that possibly achieve the Government’s objectives?
We are facing, then, changes that will place families in poverty, cost local authorities and have a disproportionate impact on poor areas. The changes will make it more difficult to remove failed asylum seekers and will do nothing to encourage them to return of their own accord. The Government should reconsider this ill thought out step and support amendment 226.
In the Bill the Government have sought to withdraw the pitifully low level of support currently provided to asylum seekers. The question of if and when the support should be withdrawn has been widely discussed in Committee. Amendment 227 would instead address the support itself, to ensure that it provides the most basic needs for asylum seekers. As currently calculated, section 95 support unquestionably does not do so. Over recent years, Government cuts and a four-year freeze in the rate of the support have seen its value fall well below the level of 75% of income support at which it was originally set. That level in itself was determined as the absolute bare minimum necessary to stave off poverty.
Section 95 support is currently £36.95 a week, or a little over £5 a day. With that money, asylum seekers must pay for food, clothing, toiletries, transport and all necessities. Asylum seekers’ situation is made even more precarious by the fact that they often arrive in Britain with nothing at all and in many cases are already malnourished and in poor health.
Repeated studies have found that section 95 support fails to meet basic needs. Research in 2013 by Refugee Action found that 70% of those surveyed were unable to buy either enough food to feed themselves, or fresh fruit and vegetables, or food that met their religious or cultural needs. Similarly, all respondents to a research survey by Freedom from Torture stated that their income was insufficient to meet their basic needs. Both surveys indicated that asylum seekers usually had to sacrifice one essential need to meet another.
A 2013 cross-party inquiry found that support was not meeting children’s basic needs. Children seeking refugee protection are some of the hardest hit by the lowest levels of support. Children under 19 recently saw their weekly payment under section 95 slashed from £52.96 a week to £36.95. That will leave a single parent with one child struggling to survive on an amount that is less than 50% of income support, despite the fact that children require extra support, especially to fully meet their social, educational and health needs. Even prior to the cuts, all lone parent respondents to Refugee Action’s research survey reported that they could not buy items for their children’s education and wellbeing, such as toys, books or stationery. No children should be forced to live in poverty as a result of Government policy, especially not those seeking protection from persecution.
One of the stated justifications for keeping asylum support rates low was that both section 95 support and section 4 support were only temporary. However, in the second quarter of this year, roughly 60% of the 29,586 pending asylum cases had either been waiting over six months for an initial decision or were awaiting further review. The Home Affairs Committee has already raised concerns about the impact of living off asylum support for extended periods of time.
In complying with a 2014 High Court judgment, the Government calculated the level of support necessary to meet asylum seekers’ most basic needs, based upon expenditure data from the Office for National Statistics for the lowest 10% income group in the UK. However, the Home Office saw fit to revise those figures downwards. In doing so, it introduced a subjective element to the calculation and ensured that support levels are vulnerable to political or budgetary pressures. Amendment 227 would introduce a level of support based on ONS data for the current financial year and ensure that it was adjusted according to the consumer prices index each year. Without those adjustments, support will continue to be eroded and asylum seekers will be pushed deeper into poverty.
Uprating asylum support levels would ensure that those seeking protection were able to meet their most basic needs. The level proposed in amendment 227 can hardly be described as profligate, amounting to only the absolute minimum necessary to stave off poverty. It is vital that we act now to address what amounts to state-enforced poverty. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to more and more vulnerable people being driven into increasingly desperate circumstances.
Anne McLaughlin
I always find—I am sure everyone will agree—that when looking at legislation it is important to remember who we are talking about and think through who will be affected by legislative changes. I will focus on one reason why amendment 226 is so important. I want to share with the Committee the story of Zara, whom I came to know extremely well, though not as well as my sister came to know her.
It took a long time for the trust to build up with Zara. She was extremely religious, came from a middle eastern country as an asylum seeker and had been refused asylum. She was therefore destitute. She came to trust my sister and, in her broken English, eventually managed to tell her what she needed. I do not want to say the words I am going to say, but I am going to say them anyway. What she needed was sanitary towels. She shared two stories—this came later, after more trust was built up—of cringe-worthy, humiliating experiences that she had gone through because she was destitute and had no support.
Once, when Zara was coming off the bus—and before anyone complains that if she had money for bus fares she had money for hygiene products, those bus tickets were given by a Glasgow charity that helps people with getting about—she heard a little boy saying something to his mum. She could not quite make out what he was saying, but he was pointing at her, and she realised was bleeding. Any woman would feel the horror and humiliation of that, but she was extremely religious and that was just the end for her.
Another experience came when a charity had made it possible for Zara to have three nights’ accommodation in the home of a very kind person. The Committee will be able to imagine what I will say. She bled through the night—because of her erratic lifestyle she had no idea that her period was about to come—and she was horrified when she woke up in the morning, went to clean the sheets and discovered the blood had seeped through to the mattress. There was no way of hiding from that very kind person, to whom she was extremely grateful, what had happened.
Sarah Champion
As I listen to the story, my heart is being ripped out, but I think what disturbs me most is having to justify someone going on a bus, as if that is an extravagant luxury. Is that what we have come to?
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I gave the justification I did because in this Committee I think I am getting to the stage when I can read the minds of some of the Conservative Members. As they did not intervene I explained how Zara managed to get on a bus.
I want to make it clear that I appreciate how uncomfortable people in this room might feel at hearing me talk about bleeding and sanitary towels. I would not normally do that; I am normally discreet, easily embarrassed and notoriously squeamish. I feel extremely uncomfortable standing here forcing myself to talk about periods, bleeding and sanitary towels, and repeating myself again and again. I am doing it because I want everyone to feel uncomfortable; I want us all to feel that discomfort, because we need to realise that whatever we feel now is a minuscule fraction of what the women I am talking about experience.
To continue reading minds, some Members might think that there are charities and good Samaritans, and ask whether help could not be got from them; but it was so painful for Zara to ask for that help. There are charities that go out to offer help, but they are primarily focused on putting a roof over someone’s head, and, if they cannot do that, on feeding them, because food is essential and hygiene products are not. They are essential only to someone’s mental wellbeing, and the charities obviously must concentrate on keeping people alive.
Again, to use telepathy—it is working well—Conservative Members may be thinking that the simple solution would be just to go home. That is all very well, but as we have heard so many times, a significant proportion of the decisions made about people are wrong. It may therefore be assumed that a significant proportion of the people who some Members may think choose to stay here and humiliate themselves with having to ask for sanitary products have no choice.
I cringe when I talk and think about Zara. I do not imagine that anyone in the room is not cringing, and I understand that, but we can do something about it. In this amendment, we are not asking for money for fripperies; we are asking for money for absolute essentials, so that people can, first, stay alive; and secondly, and just as important, are allowed their dignity. Anyone who votes against this amendment today must be honest with themselves and know that they are consciously and deliberately denying that dignity to these women and to many others. I appeal to the Minister and to Government Members to defy their Whip and vote aye—vote in favour of dignity for everyone.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
I apologise to the Committee if I repeat some of the comments that have already been made by my hon. Friends, but I feel we can never hammer home enough the points that we are trying to make today.
I will mainly speak to amendments 226 and 227. Amendment 226 would provide a very basic level of support—just over £5 a day—for destitute families who have been refused asylum. These amendments have three aims: to make sure that vulnerable children are not left destitute; to ensure that families continue to engage with the Home Office; and to head off the danger that the removal of asylum support will in practice see a massive transfer of responsibilities and duties of care from central to local government.
The first point is the most simple and in some ways the most powerful. To be entirely blunt, cutting support will mean that innocent families and their children will go without food or shelter. The Minister noted last week the importance of considering the best interests of children. As a civilised and compassionate nation, we cannot ignore the impact that withdrawing support would have on children’s welfare, health and wellbeing, or the very real dangers that they could be exposed to as a result of their family’s destitution. Without a safety net, families will resort to extreme measures, often turning to illegal work that drives them into the embrace of criminal gangs.
Removing support is also entirely counterproductive, in that it does not have the desired effect of encouraging families to leave the UK. Witnesses at the Committee’s evidence sessions told us the same thing time and time again—you do not get people to leave the country by cutting off their only means of support. All it does is give them every incentive to disappear and to stop engaging with the Home Office. Families will do that because given a choice between destitution in the UK or returning to a homeland where they believe they may be killed or tortured, they will choose the former as the least worst option. When we consider some of the absolutely desperate steps that people have taken to reach the UK to begin with, and that they have risked their lives to make the journey to Britain, we should not underestimate what they will do to stay here.
Removing support forces these families to find other ways to survive, and makes them easy prey for criminal gangs who will ruthlessly exploit their vulnerability for profit. One of the aims of the Bill is to tackle illegal employment, and the very welcome Modern Slavery Act in the last Parliament was intended to help to fight terrible crimes such as human trafficking. By removing support for failed asylum seekers, the Government may undermine both those aims, by gifting the criminals who prey on desperation a new group of people to target and exploit.
The Government seem to think that by encouraging people to leave the UK they can make savings, but their approach just will not have the effect that they intend. If they want to save money, they will do it by engaging people in the process of return. Some 40% of returns are voluntary, and even those that are not voluntary are made much easier when we have records on people and consequently know where to find them. Keeping people on the books costs money, but nothing compared to the alternative. The best way to save money is to conclude cases as quickly as possible, and encouraging people to drop off the radar by removing their support does the exact opposite.
Last week, the Solicitor General stated that he would write to me with full details of how judicial reviews would be funded. Obviously, I am yet to receive such details and I wonder if he could provide them today or before the end of the week.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I will write to the hon. Lady this week.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Solicitor General for that.
There is a further cost issue to consider, which is the impact the proposed change would have on local authorities. Last week, the Minister and I had a long discussion about the ongoing dialogue with local authorities. I stand by what I said last week. I am not convinced that discussing with local authorities the impact of these burdens that will be placed on them once the Bill is already in place is the right way to do things.
Asylum seekers who find themselves destitute will be scooped up by local authority services—statutory homelessness services, child protection services under the Children Act 1989, mental health services, adult social care services and so on.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I wonder whether it would be helpful if we were clear about our language. The hon. Lady used the phrase “asylum seekers”, and said that they will be forced to turn to the services she listed, but we are talking about failed asylum seekers—people who have exhausted their appeal rights. By that process, they have been deemed not to be refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:
“National asylum systems are there to decide which asylum-seekers actually qualify for international protection.”
We have a system for a reason, and the hon. Lady’s use of the phrase “asylum seekers” in that sentence is not accurate.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I made that error last week, too. I apologise again; I should have said “failed asylum seekers”, but what I am saying still stands.
Can the Minister clarify something? We had a long discussion last week, but I am still not entirely sure—this may be my fault, and I may be missing something—how the Bill fits with the ethos of other legislation in this country, which protects vulnerable people. I hope that the Minister can explain for my benefit—I am quite a simple character, and I like things in straightforward terms—how the Bill fits with the ethos of other legislation.
I feel strongly that this measure will potentially be a disaster for local authorities, which are already overwhelmed by funding pressures and will soon have a duty of care for other people as well. Asylum seekers are generally more concentrated in urban areas and areas of higher deprivation—the places where local authority budgets have been most dramatically cut in recent years. I do not need to remind the Committee that in the top 10 most deprived areas, the cost is 18 times higher per resident than in the 10 least deprived. If the Bill is passed, those local authorities will face a big surge in demand for such services. How will they pay for that? Will the Minister let us know whether he is going to offer them any funds?
Section 95 support cost the Home Office £45 million in 2014-15. Given that councils will have to process failed asylum seekers, assess their needs and so on, the process is likely to become much more expensive. The people concerned are spread across dozens of local authorities, which will entail duplication of work. What options do local authorities have? Should they cut services elsewhere, put up council tax or abandon their legal duties? The Bill’s lasting legacy may be to effect a massive transfer of responsibilities from the Home Office to local authorities, with no accompanying transfer of services or resources. On top of all the challenges that councils face, they will now be asked to do the Home Office’s job. The Government are washing their hands of failed asylum seekers and passing the buck to somebody else.
We must think of the human cost of causing families to live in the most dreadful poverty and separating children from their parents. When a family cannot feed their children, it is considered neglect. Children’s services will have to step in and take those children into care. I do not know what will happen when the time comes for the family to return. Will the child or children get returned to their family’s care? I have worked in child protection with a large number of families who have fled war and persecution, and I cannot stress enough the long-term damage that the separation of a child or children from their family can do to their and their parents’ mental health and emotional wellbeing. At the end of the day, it is the migrants who will suffer, and our constituents will too, with public services pushed beyond breaking point as their local authority is forced to clean up the Home Office’s mess.
The Home Office must know that that is about to happen. When the section 9 pilots were trialled a decade ago, the Home Office said that they placed “significant demands” on local authority resources. I believe strongly that the Government are on the brink of making a terrible mistake that will simultaneously undermine efforts to process asylum seekers quickly and heap unmanageable new duties on some of our country’s most deprived local authorities. I urge Government Members to accept our amendments to avoid this disaster.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The amendments would allow destitute refused asylum seekers to continue to receive the basic level of support.
On amendment 226, I should point out that what we mean by the basic level of support equates to only £5 in change a day and to housing being provided for those who have nowhere to live. I have to ask whether any of us could afford to live, to eat and to raise a family on that minimum level of support. I would think not. Amendment 227 aims to expand on that by ensuring that asylum seekers have the support they need to exist, although, again, providing only very basic support.
The oft-quoted 2005 Home Office pilot study concluded that the removal of, or reduction in, support provided to asylum-seeking families had no significant influence on removing people from the UK. In fact, the year-long pilot reported that the power to remove support from families
“did not significantly influence behaviour in favour of co-operating with removal…This suggests that the section 9 provision should not be seen as a universal tool to encourage departure”.
Therefore, even though the Bill in general has a poor evidence base, I would direct Members to the evidence that does already exist, which proves that removing all support from a family will have no impact on removing them any sooner from the country.
We have to ask why we are willing to leave people, including children, in such a perilous position. The Still Human Still Here coalition suggests that removing all support could have the opposite effect from the one intended, making it harder for people to be removed from the UK. Receiving continued support will encourage families to continue to stay in touch with the appropriate authorities. That point was expanded on during our evidence sessions by Judith Dennis, from the Refugee Council, who said:
“We think that the Bill is incompatible with the processes for families to engage with the Home Office if they want to return or have come to the end of the asylum process—these measures would not be compatible with that. The Bill will shift responsibility to local authority children’s services, which have a duty to support children in need. We do not think that it will achieve the desired outcome, partly because families will inevitably lose touch with the Home Office—there will be no incentive for them to keep engaging with the Home Office to try to resolve their situation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 5, Q1.]
The amendments aim to correct that by proposing that people be given basic support—and let us be clear that amendment 227 would only increase support from just over £5 a day to just over £6 a day. However, it does set a baseline of 60% of income support, which will, we hope, ensure that families receive the necessary support, but also that they continue to engage with the Home Office.
As a father, I do all I can to ensure that my kids have whatever they need, and I am sure all parents in the room and beyond feel the same. We would not accept our kids losing support, so why should we be content for the children of failed asylum seekers not to receive, at the very least, the basic level of support that we would want and demand? When it comes to children, we should not care where they are from or what their immigration status is—we should just help them when they need our help.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence we received was unanimous on this issue? That was the case right through to the supplementary evidence we received from Lord Green, of Migration Watch UK, who said:
“As regards to the treatment of failed asylum seekers with children, we are clear that they have no right to remain in the UK and should leave but, where children are involved, we believe that the process should take this into account.”
Unless the amendments are accepted, we will not be taking them into account.
Gavin Newlands
Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think I referenced Lord Green’s evidence on children in an earlier sitting.
If the clause is left unamended, it will see us punishing children for their parents’ actions. If pursuing the goal of removing all forms of support is intended to cut the costs to the Government, the clause also fails on that account. We have received countless pieces of evidence suggesting that removing all support will see us simply pass the costs from central to local government. That was articulated during an evidence session by Stephen Gabriel, who said:
“if the Home Office stops supporting those families, that will potentially have a negative impact on the local authority. That could be a challenge for the local authority.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 71, Q162.]
Liberty has further made the point that, despite assurances from the Government, it seems inevitable that
“some costs will be transferred to local authorities because the…removal of accommodation and support, from children in particular, risks violations of the Article 3 prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment.”
Given all that, and given the strength of feeling evidenced in a number of contributions to the debate, I hope Government Members will give the amendment serious consideration.
James Brokenshire
We have obviously had a wide-ranging debate on the amendments. In many respects, it has repeated some of the in-principle issues Opposition Members highlighted in respect of schedule 6. I therefore do not intend to spend a huge amount of time repeating the arguments we debated last week.
Amendment 226 seeks, in essence, to maintain the pre-existing arrangements. Under the current provisions in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, failed asylum seeker families continue to receive Home Office support as though their asylum claim and any appeal had not failed, with the onus on the Home Office to demonstrate non-compliance with return arrangements before support can be ceased. The amendment would maintain that position. We believe that is wrong in principle and would send entirely the wrong message to those who do not require our protection. It would also continue to undermine public confidence in the asylum system.
The current position needs to change. Failed asylum seekers are illegal migrants. Our focus should be on supporting those who have not yet had a decision on their asylum claim and who may need our protection, rather than on those who the courts have agreed do not need our protection and should leave the UK. Instead of indefinitely supporting failed asylum seekers because they have children, we need a better basis of incentives and possible sanctions. We, together with local authorities, can then work with these families in a process that secures their departure from the UK, and schedule 6 to the Bill will deliver that.
Home Office support will, of course, remain available if there is a genuine obstacle to the family leaving the UK. Opposition Members sought again to highlight the 2005 pilot, but I have already indicated the differences between these arrangements and the pre-existing arrangements. We have reflected carefully on those experiences and taken account of them, in order to provide a different approach. If failed asylum seekers decide to remain here unlawfully rather than leaving voluntarily, they should not automatically continue to receive Home Office support simply because they have made a failed asylum claim. We need a better basis of incentives, and we believe the Bill will deliver that.
Paul Blomfield
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s response to points made by Opposition Members. Does he accept there is a real risk that this measure will leave some families in destitution and therefore open to the sort of exploitation that part 1 of the Bill seeks to avoid?
James Brokenshire
That is why the arrangements have been framed as part of a continuing process in respect of those whose asylum claims have not been upheld by the courts, in terms of the notification periods and further safeguards that exist.
The hon. Member for South Shields has highlighted on a number of occasions the position of local authorities and whether this measure will transfer costs and obligations to them. I have responded to that previously. We propose that Home Office support will continue to be available to a failed asylum seeker with a dependent child or children while there remains a legal obstacle to their departure from the UK—for example, outstanding further submissions, documentation not being available or practical obstacles such as medical reasons. Human rights issues should not be engaged by the cessation of Home Office support, as any risk of destitution could be avoided by the family’s departure from the UK with assistance with the required travel costs or by their compliance with the conditions of Home Office support—for example, in applying for any travel documents required to facilitate their departure. The package of measures will be subject to the new burdens assessment process in the usual way. I say to the hon. Lady that a system has been put in place to ensure that issues related to the transfer of burdens are properly factored in and addressed.
Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides for a process whereby local authorities assess human rights-related issues such as destitution. That will continue to apply. Equally, our duties in respect of children under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 will still apply. We are discussing with local authorities the practical implementation of streamlining some of the processes in schedule 6 to those in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, to ensure that they operate efficiently and effectively. That feeds into the concept of family returns, which I spoke about previously, and the considered fashion in which we are approaching this. This is not come automatic cliff-edge point, as the provisions will apply to those who have a negative asylum decision subsequent to the Bill being in place. Therefore, it forms part of the overall removal strategy that I have previously explained.
Anne McLaughlin
I cannot remember his exact words, but the Minister seemed to say that families are choosing, and refusing, to go back to where they came from, and therefore they cannot get support. Without going into the arguments of whether they can go back, do the children of those parents have any choice? Can the children choose to go back to where their parents came from, or are they at the mercy of decisions made by the adults around them? If the answer is that they are at the mercy of those adult decisions, do we owe them anything?
James Brokenshire
I understand how the hon. Lady seeks to argue her points and I know how strongly she feels on these issues. If one follows the line of what she has just said, it would be impossible to deport any families who are here illegally. She indicated that because someone had a child, it is not the child’s fault that the family are about to be deported; therefore the family cannot be deported. I respect her position in articulating that, but I cannot agree with it.
Anne McLaughlin
On a point of clarification, I was not saying anything of the sort. I said that while they are here and those children have no input into the decision making, should we support them or punish them as well, because of the decisions of their parents?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady says that if parents who are deliberately trying to frustrate the system have children, the state should automatically continue to support them. The point of the measures is that, on the basis of remaining obstacles, support will continue for all of the family in that situation.
That is why we have the family returns process. We have assisted return, where families are actively encouraged and assisted to leave while we put the family returns process in place, which has the humane nature of supporting people to see that they return. Obviously, where there are barriers to removal, support will remain, as I have already indicated.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
We have heard the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, but she has a topsy-turvy way of looking at the issue. Surely, parents have the primary duty of care for their children. The hon. Lady and the amendment seem to suggest that parents can abdicate that responsibility but expect the state to step in to have a greater level of care and concern for their children. That is loco parentis gone bonkers.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend makes a clear point on where support should be provided. We do have duties in respect of section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, child welfare does not require—if a failed asylum-seeker family decides to remain here unlawfully when they could and should leave the UK—that they should automatically and indefinitely continue to receive support simply because they have made a failed asylum claim. That is the nub of the argument. I appreciate that there is a fundamental difference in the Committee. I note that hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye to give way. That is the nub of the argument and it seems there is a difference on that principle.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister is talking about people who have barriers to returning being exception, but regardless of the arguments about whether the adult is able to make that decision, the barrier to the child returning may be the parent’s decision. In that case the child will have barriers, but will not be an exception because the parents are not seen to have barriers.
On abdicating responsibility, I thought that if a parent was deemed to do that—I am not arguing that asylum-seeking parents are doing that—the state was supposed to take over. I thought that was what the legislation that the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned was about. Is there a duty on the state to take over if responsibility has been abdicated?
James Brokenshire
I think the hon. Lady is confusing certain issues. As I have already indicated, certain obligations exist under schedule 3 and also under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. We are discussing in detail with local authorities the interrelationship between such backstop support powers and how the different regimes fit together. That needs to be done in the joined-up fashion of understanding that if families are here unlawfully, they could and should leave and there needs to be encouragement through the returns process to ensure that they do. It is in that considered way that we propose the provisions, although hon. Members may disagree with our approach. That is, however, the stance that we seek to take, given the factors I identified and the interrelationship with local authorities I indicated.
Let me turn to amendment 227, which seeks to set the level of the cash allowances given to asylum seekers at 60% of the income support rate for people aged over 25. That would raise the amount provided from £36.95 to £43.86 a week.
The cash allowance is only one element of the support package provided to ensure that asylum seekers are not left destitute. That package needs to be seen as a whole. Accommodation is provided free and comes fully furnished and equipped with bed linen, towels and kitchen utensils. Utilities such as gas, electricity and water are also provided free. Recipients receive free healthcare and schooling for their children. The cost of travel to appointments to pursue an asylum claim—to attend asylum interviews, appeal hearings and meet legal advisers, for example—is also provided separately.
Keir Starmer
Will the Minister confirm to members of the Committee who seek comfort from the fact that we have just discussed provisions that apply to asylum seekers who have exhausted their process, that we are now discussing something that applies to all asylum seekers, including, for example, a Syrian who has got to this country in the last few months by whatever means? I take into account what he said about accommodation, but in relation to the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, the rates in the package are £1.23 a week for toiletries and 69p for healthcare. Given the particular examples that she gave, which made people feel uncomfortable, perhaps Members would like to go to Boots this afternoon and see what they could get for that.
James Brokenshire
The hon. and learned Gentleman wrapped up two points. He said that the package would apply to Syrians applying for resettlement here, but that is a separate regime. [Interruption.] He used the pejorative term of Syrians, so it is important to understand the support provided through resettlement when refugee status is accepted, because then there would be entitlement to mainstream benefits. We are talking about the mechanism for those of all nationalities who have claimed asylum in the country but whose claims have not yet been determined.
Keir Starmer
The Minister will know that I deliberately did not give that example. I said a Syrian who had arrived in this country from Europe or somewhere—not on the package. Any Syrian who is now in Europe and arrives in this country not under the resettlement regime will come on to this regime. That is the example I was giving.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that clarification, because he had not given that clarity initially and it is important to understand the different regimes that operate for those with refugee status and for someone who has come here and claimed asylum. It is helpful that he explained his intent. That is why I said what I did about how asylum support rates are intended to operate for all nationalities of people claiming asylum in this country.
I come on to the second point about the amount of cash, having already indicated to the Committee all the other support mechanisms provided to those seeking asylum fairly and appropriately. The cash amount is provided with reference to a specific legal test set out in section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The allowance is there to cover what is described as “essential living needs”.
The Home Office reviews the level of the cash allowance each year but the way that review is conducted changed in 2014. Following a judicial review, the Home Office put in place a new assessment methodology designed to give full effect to the findings of and the valuable guidance given by the court. It is important to understand how the rates are set in the context of what the court said and the guidance that it provided. First, a careful assessment is made to identify all needs that are essential and not covered through some other part of the package.
The needs identified in this way are: sufficient food to eat healthily, adequate clothing, provision to cover toiletries, household cleaning items and non-prescription medicines, sufficient provision for travel and communications for everyday purposes and to maintain interpersonal relationships and a minimum level of participation in social, cultural and interpersonal relationships. That is a term of art and an essential need identified by the court. Having identified all these particular needs, an assessment is made of how much money is required to meet each of them. This is done through a mixture of market research into the cost of the particular items and analysis of Office for National Statistics data about expenditure on the items by people in the lowest 10% income group of the UK population. This approach resulted in the allowance for a single asylum seeker being set at £36.62 per week in 2014, rising to £36.95 per week from April 2015. In 2015 we also decided that providing £36.95 for every person in the household—in other words for the asylum seeker and each dependant—would be sufficient to cover the essential living needs of all family groups. This is because of the economies of scale available to large households and is an approach taken by other European countries as well.
I recognise that many organisations representing asylum seekers and children disagree with the changes, but none of these groups has provided detailed evidence to show that the findings of the review are wrong.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister referred to ONS data in his justification for the formula that the Home Office uses. He will acknowledge that the Home Office deliberately reduces the sum calculated as essential by the ONS in several key respects, for example for clothing. How does he justify that?
James Brokenshire
I am looking at a letter sent out in July at the time of the consideration of the review and there are some adjustments. I am looking at an adjustment in relation to food and non-alcoholic drinks which was set under ONS expenditure data in 2013 but was increased after reasonable adjustment. So there is no mindset of trying to adjust down, but of seeking a fair and appropriate approach in respect of the attributable costs.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister’s point about food is of course right. Clothing goes in the other direction. If we look at all the essential living needs, the ONS data would suggest that a level of £40.47 was appropriate, which the Home Office has downgraded to £36.95. Is that not the case?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman was seeking to impute that there was a preordained mindset to adjust everything down. I have already given him an example where there has been an adjustment up. It is that fair assessment, subject to reasonable adjustment, based on the twin tests of ONS data and market research data on costs, which produces the figure. I say to him again that concerns have been expressed by various groups representing asylum seekers and children, but none has provided detailed evidence to show that the findings of the review are wrong. We will continue to assess, we will hold a further review of the allowance levels for 2016 and we would welcome detailed evidence and submissions about the level of the allowance. That is the right forum to address any perception that the allowances are not adequate.
We also do not consider that seeking to apply this to a level under income support is appropriate. It is not referencing the essential living needs test. This was debated by the other place on 27 October, when a motion to annul the regulations that implemented the findings of the most recent review was rejected. I recognise that there are differences of view on this but, on this detailed analysis, on some of these specific items, I would welcome further submissions to show whether the evidence that has been presented to us needs further reflection. Obviously we would consider that in setting the levels for 2016, but I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
The two amendments go to the heart of one of the most important provisions. On the withdrawal of support from certain categories, I will not rehearse the powerful argument showing that all the evidence says that this will not achieve the desired objective and in all likelihood will push people into destitution and exploitation. That is why it is such a fundamental issue.
A lot has been said already about the daily rates. It is true that the food and non-alcoholic drink rate is up from the ONS data to £24.96. That is just over £3.50 per day for the very many weeks and months that it takes for a decision to be made about someone who is seeking asylum and may have come from any number of countries, fleeing persecution. All the other rates that have been adjusted, have been adjusted down.
Keir Starmer
All the others that have been adjusted have been adjusted down. Some have not been adjusted. I will happily take an intervention if I am wrong about that. Clothing and footwear has gone down from £4.62 to £2.51, and travel from £3.62 to £3. That is 45p or so a day for travel. I do not know in which city people are expected to live for these weeks or months, but travelling for 45p a day is not an easy task. There are not many bus fares that can be bought for that even in one direction. On those adjustments down, the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central put was not whether this was a preordained decision but whether that downward trend could be justified. That question was not answered.
The amendments go to the heart of this part of the Bill and I will press them to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 228, in schedule 6, page 100, line 16, at end insert—
‘(43A) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(43B) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following.
(11) Rules must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment and that permission must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or
(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that fresh claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a fresh claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which they were recorded.
(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””
This proposed amendment would provide for asylum seekers to be able to work if their claim is not determined within the Home Office target time of six months.
The amendment follows amendment 227 in that it would provide for asylum seekers to be able to work if their claim was not determined within the Home Office target time of six months. One of the injustices here is that those who have to exist on the low rates that the Committee has just discussed must do so under a system that prohibits them from working.
More than 3,600 asylum seekers currently wait more than six months for an initial decision on their cases. They are the individuals surviving on just over £5 a day, as we have just discussed. As things stand, they can apply for permission to work only if they have been waiting for more than a year for an initial decision. If that permission is granted, they are allowed to seek employment only in an occupation listed on the shortage occupation list.
This system has changed over the years as a result of a number of challenges and different policy decisions. The evidence that not allowing people to work deters them from coming to the UK is extremely hard to maintain when the position in other EU countries is taken into account. Some 11 EU countries grant permission to work after six months or less, if a decision has not been made on the asylum application. All those countries have had policies in place for many years. The recast EU reception conditions directive reduces the period an asylum seeker can be excluded from the labour market in an initial decision to nine months. Some 27 EU states have more generous policies than the UK as a combined result of those provisions.
This simple amendment would put people who have had to wait more than six months for their decision in a position where they can work, which is what many of them want to do. The net result for the taxpayer is likely to be a saving rather than a cost.
Sarah Champion
I would like to build on my hon. and learned Friend’s well made argument. I thank the Regional Asylum Activism Project for Yorkshire and Humberside for their help.
Despite often arriving in the UK with a host of skills and experiences gained in their country of origin, hardly any asylum seekers are allowed to work while their claim is being assessed by the Home Office. Only asylum seekers who have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their case are eligible to apply for permission to work, but even those granted permission to work are not allowed to work in a self-employed capacity, set up a business, or take up a job that is not included on the highly specialised shortage occupation list. The current restrictions on accessing employment for people seeking refugee protection stops many highly skilled, experienced and educated individuals from contributing to the UK’s economy and society. For example, refugees started Marks & Spencer and brought us fish and chips and the Mini. People seeking refugee protection today will include, among many others, entrepreneurs, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, scientists and solicitors. Fundamentally, allowing asylum seekers to work will make economic, social and political sense.
First, on economics, if asylum seekers were granted permission to work, they would be able to contribute to the UK economy immediately through income tax, adding directly to the UK’s coffers. Equally, amounts spent on asylum support would decline, resulting in a net benefit to the economy. That has been recognised by the European Commission, which states:
“Mandatory unemployment… imposes costs on the State through the payment of additional social welfare payments.”
Government research has also recognised that delayed entry to the labour market, loss of skills and confidence, and difficulty getting qualifications recognised in this country can cause problems even when status is granted, leading to high levels of unemployment and underemployment. Allowing people to work while waiting for their asylum claim decision will not only allow them to start rebuilding their lives free from persecution, but allow them to start the journey towards meaningful employment as soon as possible.
Secondly, the indirect costs of enforced poverty are significant. Without the right to work, people in the asylum system are forced to rely on Government support to survive, but with asylum support rates set at £5.28 a day—barely 50% of the income support equivalent—many in the asylum system are forced into institutionalised poverty. As I and other hon. Members have said, extended periods living in poverty have huge impacts on physical and mental health and self-esteem. For some, a reliance on Government support is considered shameful, as they are unable to support themselves and their families; that concern has been raised by the cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people. Research from the University of Leeds and the University of Salford found that the experience of poverty was a key factor in pushing many individuals in the asylum process into exploitative and precarious working conditions. I suggest that providing those in the asylum process with the legal permission to work is in line with the Government’s commitment to ending modern day slavery.
Thirdly, the rationale for the current policy does not hold up. The reasons for restricting permission to work for asylum seekers hinge on the idea that it will act as pull factor, but it is important to remember the conclusions of research the Home Office commissioned in 2002:
“There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK.”
That was confirmed by a review of the 19 main recipient countries for asylum applications in the OECD in 2011, which concluded that policies that relate to the welfare of asylum seekers did not impact on the number of applications made in destination countries. All but one of the countries that granted permission to work to people seeking asylum received fewer asylum applications than the UK in 2012 and 2013.
A change of policy to allow asylum seekers the permission to work is long overdue. In 2007, the Joint Committee on Human Rights described the denial of the right to work for asylum seekers as part of a “deliberate policy of destitution”, which was breaching human rights. In 2013, the cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people called for parents and young people to be given permission to work while their claims were being decided. Thirteen local authorities have passed motions condemning the destitution of people seeking asylum. To date, 71 current Members of this House, of all political persuasions, have signed Still Human Still Here’s declaration on permission to work. They join the Trades Union Congress and a broad coalition of organisations, from Refugee Council to Crisis, Doctors of the World to The Children’s Society, in their call for people seeking refugee protection to be allowed to live in dignity, not destitution.
Allowing asylum seekers permission to work will enable many to support themselves through the asylum process. We should grant permission to work to all asylum seekers if they have been waiting more than six months for an initial decision, up until their protection needs are recognised or a safe route back to their country of origin has been negotiated. For this reason, I urge the Minister to support the amendment.
James Brokenshire
This is clearly a debate that has been going on for some time. I know there are differences of opinion on the time period that should or should not operate for those who have claimed asylum in this country. The amendment would radically change existing permission to work arrangements for asylum seekers, allowing permission to work where an asylum claim is still outstanding after six months instead of 12 months, removing the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making and lifting all restrictions on the type of employment available. Those are the three elements that have been advanced by Opposition Members.
The amendment would enable persons to take any employment of their choice, rather than be restricted to those on the shortage occupation list published by the Home office. The arguments made were initially about compliance with some of our EU obligations and what other EU partners are doing—I will come on to that—and then, separately, what those who are working could contribute. Also, some evidence was adduced on whether permission to work is a pull factor. Let me deal with each in turn.
On the issue of the EU, our current position is consistent with our obligations under the EU reception conditions directive, which sets out the minimum benefits and entitlements afforded to asylum seekers while they await a decision on their claim. That is reflected in part 11B of the immigration rules, but we decided not to opt in to the recast reception conditions directive requiring member states to grant automatic access to the labour market for asylum seekers after nine months, regardless of a decision at first instance being taken, because we considered the Commission’s proposal could undermine our asylum system by encouraging unfounded claims from those seeking to use the asylum system as a cover for economic migration.
It is important to understand that asylum claims cover a range of different circumstances and scenarios. Someone might have claimed asylum at their point of arrival, or been smuggled into this country and then claimed asylum. Someone may already be in the UK, having come via a lawful route, and circumstances change in their home country, so they might claim asylum, or they simply seek to stay here and they use an asylum claim as a means of extending their stay in this country. Sadly, that is the reality of some of the asylum claims that we seek to respond to within the system.
The amendment poses a challenge. Should we be taking steps that are more consistent with our EU partners? I think that in the UK it is right that we should form our own decisions, based on our assessment of our asylum system and what we judge is in the best interests of this country, while supporting the processing and the proud tradition that we have had in this country of granting asylum in this country.
On the labour market issues, an argument was advanced in the context of the asylum support budget, but that argument does not take into account the potential to open up the resident labour market in a way that could blur the distinction between economic migration and asylum. I genuinely worry about measures that blur that distinction. People could apply for asylum but not engage with the process, with the deliberate intent of delaying the process so that they can then be granted the benefit of being able to work after the end of the six-month period. We are concerned that this may lead to an increase in asylum applications that would divert valuable resources away from ensuring that those genuinely in need of protection are recognised quickly, enabling them to integrate and begin rebuilding their lives. That is the approach that we have taken in seeking to ensure that the processing of asylum claims is much better than it was when this Government came in.
Paul Blomfield
If that is the case, presumably the amendment presents no risk or significant worry to the Government. Does the Minister accept that the longer somebody is out of the labour market, the more difficult it is for them to integrate—to get back into the labour market, to contribute to society and so on? Is there not an assumption of failure or refusal underlying the Government’s position, when in fact a very large number of asylum applicants are successful and we all share the objective of seeing them successfully integrate into the labour market?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was underlining about the need to see that asylum claims are processed as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, I do think that the amendment would blur the lines and might well lead to spurious or inappropriate asylum claims being made, perhaps by people already in this country coming to the end of their stay, whether they came as visitors, students or via other routes. That is a real challenge. The amendment would undermine the integrity of what we all believe in: providing protection to those who are fleeing persecution, ensuring that we have a system that is efficient, effective and focused on making those decisions and seeing that people receive support as recognised refugees at the earliest opportunity. It risks more claims, of whatever character, being made.
We also have to bear in mind the resident labour market. It is argued that if you give an asylum seeker the right to work, you are, in essence, denying a job to someone who is already living in this country lawfully. Because of the implications of that we judge that it is right to have a system that recognises that if there is delay—we judge that 12 months is the right period—people can work, but they should not be seeking to frustrate or delay the system; that test has to be captured as well. It is about shortage skills, those that are needed. That is why the focus is there, otherwise we get into a blurring of issues in relation to economic migration. We must do our utmost to ensure that people in this country who have the skills and the ability are able to access the job market.
Sarah Champion
I hear the Minister’s argument. Does he know—if he does not, perhaps he will write to us—the average length of time that an asylum claim takes? From the casework that I get, it seems to be considerably more than 12 months normally, so does his argument stack up? What is the difference between six months and 12 months if the average is 18 months?
James Brokenshire
I can tell the hon. Lady that 85% of cases are straightforward and we have a service standard of dealing with those within six months. We dealt with a big backlog earlier this year—that is why I make the point about the effort that has gone in. Many people in the asylum processing system will say that asylum processing is probably in as good a place now as it has been in for many years, but of course I look for further improvements; we do not sit back. Equally, it depends on some of the pressures in terms of changes or increases in the numbers of those who are claiming asylum. We are very vigilant in monitoring how we are dealing with this. I can say to the hon. Lady that 85% of cases are straightforward and that our service standard is to deal with those within six months. Obviously, it is difficult to know what proportion of the people in her constituency may be in the situation she describes; it is difficult to draw that parallel. However, I hope that it is helpful at least to set out the approach that we are taking and that balance in terms of how asylum claims are dealt with.
We judge that the current policy strikes the right balance. Asylum seekers are provided with support and accommodation, but if their asylum claims are undetermined for 12 months for reasons outside their control, they can apply for permission to work. We believe that that is a fair and reasonable policy that we should keep. For the reasons that I have outlined, we ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Keir Starmer
The Minister puts forward a number of good reasons for the decisions to be made within six months and prays in aid the service standard, which is to be supported, but the real question is: how many cases are actually decided within the service standard? We all have examples of where they are not. We know that the number is roughly 3,600. I am sure that the Minister did not welcome the ombudsman’s report published this morning, or at least reported on this morning, about the very high level of complaints upheld by the ombudsman, particularly in relation to immigration decision making. That does not mean that things are not moving in the right direction, but it does mean that very many cases are not decided within the six-month period.
James Brokenshire
The point that I was making about the service standard for dealing with the 85% of cases that are straightforward was that that has been met. I do not know whether that is helpful to the hon. and learned Gentleman in relation to his point.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for that, but it still leaves outstanding the 3,600 cases in which people have not had their decision made within the six-month period. The Minister says that there is a concern that if there is a change in the current regime to a six-month regime, that may lead to adverse consequences, but as I understand it, that is simply unevidenced. Whatever research has been carried out in this area, it is unevidenced. It is a fear, but it is an unevidenced fear. The reason why I cited the EU provisions was not so much to argue that we should necessarily align ourselves with the EU position and should not take our own position as it was to say that it is much more difficult to make the argument that a six-month regime would operate as a pull factor if other countries are operating that regime at the moment.
James Brokenshire
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the evidence that has been cited is from prior to the current migration crisis and that many EU countries are reflecting on their support and other mechanisms for providing asylum, precisely because of a number of these factors?
Keir Starmer
I do accept that, although I think that anyone in this Committee would be hard-pressed to say that the migration crisis of this summer was linked in any way, shape or form to whether someone could work after six months or after 12 months.
James Brokenshire
The reason why I intervened on the hon. and learned Gentleman was that his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, I think, had alluded to the timing of the reports. The point that I was trying to get across—I will make it briefly in this intervention—was that, sadly, we do see people traffickers, through social media and other means, seeking to set out the position of certain member states and what people are entitled to and, in a very deliberate way, encouraging people to try to come to other European countries.
Keir Starmer
The Minister was intervening on me. I take that intervention; I have no quarrel with it in any way, shape or form. This is an important point, because there is a real fairness and justice in allowing people to work if they want to work, rather than surviving on £5 a day. Most people would agree on that. The concern expressed by the Minister is that if the period is too short, it can have adverse consequences, which is a serious point that needs to be debated.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. and learned Friend will note the enthusiasm with which the Minister is intervening on him. Does he share my hope that the Minister might intervene to provide some more evidence regarding the pull factor? In his earlier comments, the Minister said he would outline exactly why the Government thought that was not the case, but he has conspicuously failed to do so. Now would be a good opportunity for him to do that.
Keir Starmer
In fairness, knowing the Minister, I think that if there was a sound evidence base, he would have referred to it already and the fact that he has not speaks volumes. There has obviously been a discussion about the migration crisis this summer and the impact—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I thought it might be useful to the Committee—I did say this right at the beginning—and particularly for new Members to say that Members are not restricted to one speech. As this debate has developed, if more Members want to catch my eye, that is quite appropriate.
Keir Starmer
Thank you, Mr Bone.
Clearly, as a result of what has happened this summer, there will be discussions about all aspects of the framework across the EU in relation to migration, but at this point, I was only praying in aid the EU provisions to counter any suggestion that the change proposed in the amendment would act as a pull factor when so many other countries in Europe have operated a different system for some time. In the crisis this summer, although there may be individual examples of traffickers exploiting pretty well every provision that they are capable of exploiting, I would have thought that the vast majority of cases had absolutely nothing to do with whether people can work after six or 12 months.
The Chair
I am not entirely sure whether the shadow Minister is pressing the amendment to a Division.
Keir Starmer
I do apologise, Mr Bone. That is because I did not say one way or another, but I will press the amendment. I am grateful for the steer.
James Brokenshire
I beg to move amendment 105, in schedule 8, page 107, line 34, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii).
This amendment makes minor drafting changes by omitting the unnecessary alterations to the conjunctions in section 25B(3) Immigration Act 1971.
James Brokenshire
Amendments 105 to 112 are technical corrections to the drafting of the Bill. I will provide a brief explanation.
The lead amendment makes minor drafting changes by omitting the unnecessary alterations to the conjunctions in section 25B(3) of the Immigration Act 1971. Amendment 106 makes a minor amendment to correct the reference to which paragraph requires amending. Amendment 107 ensures that immigration officers must seek authorisation from the Secretary of State before exercising the maritime powers in relation to a foreign ship, or a ship registered under the law of a relevant territory, within UK territorial waters adjacent to Northern Ireland. That aligns the provision with the equivalent provisions applicable to UK territorial waters adjacent to England, Wales and Scotland. Amendment 108 removes the superfluous definition of “home state” and has no substantive effect. Amendments 109, 110, 111 and 112 are all minor drafting changes to ensure consistency of language throughout the schedule.
Amendment 105 agreed to.
Amendments made: 106, in schedule 8, page 108, line 9, leave out “28A” and insert “28A(3)”.
This minor amendment substitutes “28A” for “28A(3)” to correct the reference to which paragraph requires amending.
Amendment 107, in schedule 8, page 109, line 26, after “before” insert “an immigration officer,”.—(James Brokenshire.)
This amendment ensures that immigration officers must seek authorisation from the Secretary of State prior to exercising the maritime powers in relation to a foreign ship or a ship registered under the law of a relevant territory, within UK territorial waters adjacent to Northern Ireland. This aligns the provision with the equivalent provisions applicable to UK territorial waters adjacent to England, Wales and Scotland.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 229, page 109, line 35, in schedule 8, at beginning insert—
‘( ) Hot pursuit can only be commenced when a ship is in United Kingdom waters.”
Probing amendment to provide the Minister with an opportunity to confirm that hot pursuit will only start when the ship is in territorial waters, as required by Article 111 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The amendment is a probing one and, following our debate, we might not have to press it to a Division. There are provisions on hot pursuit in article 111 of the UN convention on the law of the sea. We tabled the amendment to seek assurance that the schedule, which is on maritime enforcement, is aligned with that international obligation, providing the Minister with the opportunity to confirm that hot pursuit will start only when a ship is in UK territorial waters. If that is the case, the provisions in the schedule will align with article 111 of the UN convention and the amendment is unnecessary.
James Brokenshire
The right of hot pursuit from territorial waters into international waters has long formed part of UK common law and reflects the provisions in article 111 of the UN convention. The Bill preserves the common law position by virtue of new section 28P(10) of the Immigration Act 1971, inserted by schedule 8. I can therefore confirm that under the maritime powers in the Bill, hot pursuit will commence only when a ship is in territorial or internal waters, as permitted by article 111 of the UN convention. In the light of that assurance, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is minded to withdraw the amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 108, in schedule 8, page 111, leave out lines 21 to 24.—(James Brokenshire.)
This amendment removes the superfluous definition of “home state” and has no substantive effect.
Keir Starmer
I beg to move amendment 236, in schedule 8, page 113, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) If in the course of questioning or otherwise a person expresses to or in the presence of an immigration officer, a fear of return that may be a claim for asylum then the person shall be taken to the UK for that case to be considered.”
Probing amendment to seek assurances the powers granted in the Bill will not be used to push back asylum seekers at sea.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 237, in schedule 8, page 118, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) If in the course of questioning or otherwise a person expresses to or in the presence of an immigration officer, a fear of return that may be a claim for asylum then the person shall be taken to the UK for that case to be considered.”
See explanatory note for Amendment 236.
Amendment 238, in schedule 8, page 122, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) If in the course of questioning or otherwise a person expresses to or in the presence of an immigration officer, a fear of return that may be a claim for asylum then the person shall be taken to the UK for that case to be considered.”
See explanatory note for Amendment 236.
Keir Starmer
I will deal with the amendments in the group together, as amendments 237 and 238 would simply apply the provisions of amendment 236 to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. Again, it may be that the Minister’s remarks mean that there is no need to press the amendment.
Our concern is that the powers in the schedule for immigration officers to detain or search those found on boats in UK territorial waters should not be used to push back asylum seekers arriving by boat. As things stand, claims for asylum can be made in UK territorial waters, and if made are dealt with in accordance with the appropriate procedures. There is a wealth of support for that remaining the position. The amendment is probing, and if the Committee is given an assurance on the issue I have raised, I may not need to cite that great wealth of support.
James Brokenshire
I will give a brief response to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s probing amendment. The powers in the Bill do not permit officers to turn vessels back. Under the power, vessels may be diverted only to a port in the UK. Upon arrival in the UK an individual wishing to claim asylum may do so and will be processed in the ordinary way. As is the case for all persons arriving in the UK, they will be subject to an immigration examination under the Immigration Act once they have arrived on land, and may also be detained under relevant provisions pending an immigration decision. If they are assessed as being an illegal entrant or attempted illegal entrant, they will be processed under paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, and removed accordingly.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. What he has just said will appear on the record of the proceedings in Committee. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Immigration Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 230, in schedule 8, page 114, line 9, leave out “elsewhere” and insert “, at port or as conveniently as possible thereafter”
To limit powers of search to the ship, the port and as conveniently as possible thereafter, not anywhere in the country.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 233, in schedule 8, page 114, line 22, leave out “elsewhere” and insert “, at port or as conveniently as possible thereafter”
See explanatory note for Amendment 230.
Amendment 239, in schedule 8, page 116, leave out lines 4 to 6
To prevent persons accompanying immigration officers carrying out searches in accordance with this part of the Bill.
Amendment 242, in schedule 8, page 116, leave out lines 13 to 18
To remove the immunity from prosecution and civil suit for constables and enforcement officers exercising powers under the Bill.
Amendment 231, in schedule 8, page 118, line 32, leave out “elsewhere” and insert “, at port or as conveniently as possible thereafter”
See explanatory note for Amendment 230.
Amendment 234, in schedule 8, page 118, line 45, leave out “elsewhere” and insert “, at port or as conveniently as possible thereafter”
See explanatory note for Amendment 230.
Amendment 240, in schedule 8, page 120, leave out lines 26 to 28
See explanatory note for Amendment 239.
Amendment 243, in schedule 8, page 120, leave out lines 35 to 40
See explanatory note for Amendment 242.
Amendment 232, in schedule 8, page 123, line 9, leave out “elsewhere” and insert “, at port or as conveniently as possible thereafter”
See explanatory note for Amendment 230.
Amendment 235, in schedule 8, page 123, line 22, leave out “elsewhere” and insert “, at port or as conveniently as possible thereafter”
See explanatory note for Amendment 230.
Amendment 241, in schedule 8, page 125, leave out lines 4 to 6
See explanatory note for Amendment 239.
Amendment 244, in schedule 8, page 125, leave out lines 13 to 18
See explanatory note for Amendment 242.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
On a point of order, Mr Owen. This morning I assured the hon. Member for South Shields that a letter would be written. It has indeed now been sent to you and Mr Bone. I hope that that will answer some of the queries that she raised in debate some sittings ago.
Keir Starmer
This is a daunting number of amendments, but most relate to extensions with respect to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
There are three substantive points. First, as the background to amendment 230, schedule 8 inserts new schedule 4A into the Immigration Act 1971. It covers enforcement powers
“exercisable by immigration officers, English and Welsh constables and enforcement officers”
in relation to ships. We spoke this morning about the power to stop, board, divert and detain a ship, and about the power to search and obtain information under new paragraph 3. Under new paragraph 3(2) the “relevant officer” may search
“the ship; anyone on the ship; and anything on the ship”.
The provision to which amendment 230 relates is new paragraph 3(8), which states:
“A power conferred by this paragraph may be exercised on the ship or elsewhere.”
“Elsewhere” is obviously widely defined. There is a power to search the ship and anyone or anything on it, which suggests that it is ship-focused, but sub-paragraph (8) is open-ended and provides for a power to search on the ship or anywhere. To some extent the amendment may have a probing function to enable us to understand the reasoning behind the provision, but our concern is that the power is very broad and we seek assurance that it is not intended that the power under the schedule could be exercised literally anywhere, at any time.
Secondly, to give the context to amendment 239, new paragraph 4 deals with the power of arrest and seizure; new paragraph 5 is on protective searches of persons—searches that can be made of individuals to seize and retain items; and new paragraph 6 deals with searches for nationality documents.
Then comes new paragraph 7, which is odd. The “relevant officer” appears pretty well through the Bill and is the officer with the relevant powers, training, duties and so on. New paragraph 7(1) provides for assistants:
“A relevant officer may…be accompanied by other persons”.
Then sub-paragraph (2) creates a very broad power:
“A person accompanying a relevant officer under sub-paragraph (1) may perform any of the officer’s functions under this Part of this Schedule, but only under the officer’s supervision.”
If that means what it says, anybody can exercise powers of search, including searches of people, and other powers without the need for any of the normal training and safeguards around the exercise of that power. On the face of it, simply anybody with the officer who is deemed to be an assistant can carry out all of these functions. That is an extraordinarily wide power. I do not think that exists in other areas of the law. Designating someone as an assistant in that way certainly does not exist in relation to police officers or other enforcement officers. That is a very broad power.
Thirdly, on amendment 242, we turn again to page 116 and the same set of provisions:
“A relevant officer is not liable in any criminal or civil proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of functions under this Part of this Schedule if the court is satisfied that—
(a) the act was done in good faith, and
(b) there were reasonable grounds for doing it.”
That is a very wide-ranging immunity which is as broad as anything I have ever seen. If, heaven forbid, there were a fatality when someone was being held or searched or force was used—as has tragically happened in immigration cases—this would exempt from any criminal or civil proceedings anyone acting in good faith with reasonable grounds, notwithstanding the other common law and statutory defences that would be available. On the face of it, that would prevent a court looking into the exercise of these powers. That is obviously a deep cause for concern. Although there are many amendments, those are the three core issues that run through the set.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We can all agree that we do not want to see anyone attempt to gain illegal entry into the UK by means of being smuggled in an overcrowded boat or vessel. Ensuring that immigration officials have the proper power to carry out their important duties is important not only in terms of enforcing our immigration control but with regards to increasing safety at sea.
That said, part 6 and, in particular, schedule 8 introduce a raft of new powers for immigration and maritime officers. It is only right and proper that we scrutinise those powers appropriately to ensure that the proper powers are being introduced to the correct officers and that they balance appropriately with the liberties that people are entitled to. I am not convinced that these provisions in their current form meet that aim and balance the equipping of immigration officers with the power that they need with ensuring that they treat international citizens with the respect that they deserve. Therefore, the aim of the amendments is to strike that balance between protecting an individual’s liberty and human rights and giving Home Office officers sufficient, important powers to carry out their duties. I accept that this is a difficult balance for the Home Office to strike.
We should be concerned about the regular use of the word “elsewhere” throughout this section of the Bill and what that implies. This in particular relates to the searches that will be conducted into the personal lives of individuals. In earlier sittings of the Committee, we have spoken about the dangers of speculative searches and the Home Office’s poor track record on completing them. I will not repeat the arguments already made but I will stress that these searches could have a significant and deteriorating impact on community relations and social cohesion.
Amendments 239, 240 and 241 make the point that, regardless of what happens with the Bill and the form it ends up taking, regardless of what law is finally passed, we all need to be sure that we have fully trained, capable and appropriate individuals carrying out the checks and enforcement that the law will demand. They will have powers of arrest without warrant, search, arrest and seizure. The Bill proposes that persons wholly unspecified may be able to carry out all these powers without limitation, under supervision of an immigration officer. Any powers under these provisions should be exercised by immigration officers alone. The amendments will ensure that the Home Office has the appropriate immigration officers carrying out the proper checks. The power and functions relating to this section of the Bill are wide and varied, including arresting without warrant, seizing property and conducting searches. The implications for the individuals concerned are so severe that these functions must be exercised by fully trained immigration officers. There is no excuse for them not to be.
The responsibilities of immigration officers who are operating at sea are arguably more demanding than those who are operating on land. Not only do they have to be qualified in immigration law, but they have to be experienced at dealing with ships at sea. This is an extremely important point. Safety concerns are at stake and I again make the point that we cannot make a half-hearted attempt on who we delegate these powers to. Schedule 8 may not have been one of the most widely discussed provisions in the Bill, but that should not distract our attention from it. Events over the summer have highlighted the danger that exists in trying to gain asylum through a vessel of some sort. Schedule 8 grants officers the
“Power to stop, board, divert and detain”
ships for immigration offences. Safety concerns arise in that regard and therefore careful consideration should be given to the schedule and the amendments that have subsequently been proposed.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I hope that, with our clarifications and assurances, hon. Members will realise our purpose and intentions. We are taking the power because of a gap in the law. Until now, there has been a small number of relatively isolated incidents involving suspected facilitation in UK territorial waters. However, those incidents illustrate a gap in the legislation. Border Force officers currently have no powers to act unless the vessel is also of customs interest. In those circumstances, they have to pass the information to immigration officers on land and monitor the vessel’s movements while it remains at sea.
We judge that that gap in the law needs to be addressed to reflect the difference between powers that could be exercised for customs purposes and powers that could be exercised for immigration purposes. It is an issue if the powers cannot be exercised in the context of a vessel that is considered to be smuggling people rather than contraband, given the risk that organised crime groups, as we are seeing elsewhere, may over time seek to smuggle in a different way. The purpose of the schedule is to be prepared and to have the right legislative framework in place to be able to respond to any such risk in UK territorial waters.
Amendments 230 to 235 seek
“To limit the maritime search powers under the Bill to the ship, the port and as conveniently as possible thereafter”.
The amendments raise concerns, as the hon. and learned Gentleman, the shadow Minister, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North have highlighted, about whether the powers could be exercised anywhere on land. For ease, I will simply refer to the part of the schedule that deals with England and Wales, but I assure hon. Members that the same provisions equally apply, in certain other aspects of the schedule, in respect of waters adjacent to the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The power to search in paragraph 3 of new schedule 4A only applies to a search of the ship, anyone on the ship and anything on the ship, as the hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted. The Bill does not limit where the power may be exercised in order to ensure that there are no gaps in the power. He was rightly probing and testing as to the intent of the term “elsewhere”. In part, it ensures that there is provision to arrest a person should they jump overboard to evade enforcement officers. Given the nature of the powers that we are seeking to provide, that could be entirely possible, whether they jump into the water or, if the vessel is in more inland waters, on to land. We need to be able to ensure that the provisions are operable in those circumstances. That will not be possible if the provision is limited to a ship or a port. I reassure the Committee that the test in paragraph 3(1) of new schedule 4A to the Immigration Act 1971 connects the exercise of the powers with suspicion regarding the ship. I hope that that connection may be helpful in giving an understanding of what we are trying to get at here.
Keir Starmer
This is in the nature of a probing intervention to ensure that I understand the Minister. The search is constrained by new paragraph 3(2) and I understand the reasoning, but there is no power of arrest in the paragraph; there is only a power of search. So sub-paragraph (8) would not help in the circumstance where someone jumps overboard and needs to be arrested. If someone jumped overboard, they could only be searched. I am probing because I do not quite understand the logic, but it may be that I am not quick enough.
James Brokenshire
That is connected to sub-paragraph (3), which states:
“The relevant officer may require the master of the ship, or any member of its crew, to take such action as is necessary for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(c).”
Obviously, the officer would require the ship to be taken to a port. That is connected to the ability to search, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has highlighted. There may be circumstances, for example, in which someone jumps off a ship and is rescued by officers where a search may be appropriate under the exercise of that power. We are trying to cover such circumstances. I recognise that he is fairly seeking to probe on that, and I hope my answer is helpful.
Amendments 239 to 244 would ensure that only the officers specified in the Bill can use the powers, and would remove the protection of officers from personal, criminal and civil liability. I will address those two points separately. The provision permitting powers to be exercised by accompanying officers reflects existing powers under other legislation—most notably, the powers recently considered by the House in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The extension of powers to assistants also exists in general for those working alongside customs officers under section 8 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
In my opening comments I sought to explain the arrangement that Border Force officers have responsibility for revenue protection, as well as for the border, and they utilise those powers when they are on board cutters. We have therefore sought to ensure that there is no mismatch between customs powers and immigration powers. Other examples in the maritime context include paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, concerning powers to combat drug smuggling.
The reason why such powers may be given to assistants is not to permit untrained individuals to exercise those powers, but to ensure effective joint working with partner agencies that have at least a basic level of law enforcement training. The measure permits officers from partner organisations who may be working alongside enforcement officers, such as fisheries inspection officers, to assist immigration officers. It is important to emphasise the requirement that such persons must still be supervised.
On the protection of officers against civil and criminal liability, the measure extends only to personal liability; it does not prevent a claim for which an employer may be vicariously liable. When a court considers that officers have acted in good faith and that there were reasonable grounds for their actions, we think it is right from a public policy perspective that they are not held personally liable for carrying out their duties and acting in good faith. There are many other examples of where law enforcement officers are given equivalent protection. I understand that the principle has long been part of English law—prior to this sitting, the Solicitor General and I were discussing that it can be traced back to section 6 of the Constables Protection Act 1750, which I am assured remains in force today. Members may not have anticipated that they would be referring back to certain legislation in Committee, but the Solicitor General has come across the 1750 Act, which I underline.
With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras will recognise that the measure is not an extension of the law but builds on existing legislative practices and principles. I therefore ask him to reflect on what he fairly said are probing amendments to gain a better sense of our intent and the purpose and nature of schedule 8. I hope that he is minded to withdraw his amendment.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I wonder aloud how long that immunity provision, however long-standing it is, can survive. The idea that people are immune from criminal law in that way is hard to reconcile with later legislation, but that is a much bigger argument than the one we are having now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 109, in schedule 8, page 114, line 17, leave out “detain” and insert “retain”.
This amendment and amendments 110 and 112 are minor drafting changes for consistency with language used elsewhere in the Schedule and have no substantive effect.
Amendment 110, in schedule 8, page 118, line 40, leave out “detain” and insert “retain”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 109.
Amendment 111, in schedule 8, page 122, line 6, leave out “(in England and Wales or elsewhere)” and insert “in the United Kingdom”.
This amendment is a minor drafting change for consistency with the language used in the equivalent provisions for England, Wales and Scotland.
Amendment 112, in schedule 8, page 123, line 17, leave out “detain” and insert “retain”.—(James Brokenshire.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 109.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
English language requirements for public sector workers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Solicitor General
Clauses 38 to 45 deal with the question of English language requirements for public sector workers.
I will deal with the subsections of clause 38 in turn. Subsection (1) sets out the requirement for public authorities to ensure that each of their workers in customer-facing roles speak fluent English. I know you will have an interest in this, Mr Owen: clause 43 provides specifically that where there are statutory duties in Wales, the requirement includes fluency in English and in the language of heaven. All members of the public who access public services need to be able to understand the information provided and be confident that their needs are thoroughly understood. Ensuring that that is the case will not only create better and more efficient services for taxpayers but will contribute to meeting our manifesto commitments to promote British values, in a positive and appropriate way.
Subsection (2) will require all public authorities to have regard to a code of practice when deciding how to comply with the duty set out in subsection (1). Of course, public authorities will have an opportunity to help shape that code of practice by responding to the open consultation that has been live since 13 October and will run until early December. Copies of the consultation documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
Subsections (3) and (4) will require each public authority to operate a complaints procedure. Citizens must, of course, be able to report their experience of a customer-facing worker not speaking fluent English. Public bodies must consider and respond to those complaints.
Subsections (5), (6) and (7) explain that a worker in the scope of the duty will be someone working under a contract of employment or of apprenticeship with a public authority, as a contractor to do work personally for a public authority, as an agency worker or as a police officer, civil servant or member of the armed forces. Speaking with members of the public must be a “regular and intrinsic part” of their role.
Keir Starmer
There is some concern that such a clause could operate in a discriminatory manner, with complaints and assumptions being made about what is fluent English and who is able to speak fluent English. Will the Solicitor General give an assurance that effective measures will be put in the code or elsewhere to ensure that any potential discriminatory effects and consequences are mitigated or eliminated?
The Solicitor General
I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman several assurances. First, in assessing the potential discriminatory impact of the clause, the consultation process is an important part of allowing Government to understand precisely what the pressures might be. I also assure him that the standards of fluency will be assessed by the employer. The draft code of practice already contains welcome indicative standards for what various qualifications mean in terms of English fluency. Therefore, within the interview and selection process, there will be systems in place that can be deployed to deflect some of the more specious complaints that might be made. There will be an objective standard rather than a somewhat fluid situation, which I am sure he agrees would be wholly unsatisfactory.
I was going to deal with the basic definition of fluency that will underpin the code of practice. Subsection (8) explains that for the purposes of the Bill,
“a person speaks fluent English if the person has a command of spoken English which is sufficient to enable the effective performance of the person’s role.”
Therefore, it follows that employers will have to satisfy themselves of that criterion among the others that they might deploy in seeking persons to fill vacancies for customer-facing jobs. Subsection (9) clarifies that the requirement to speak fluent English applies to existing workers and new members of staff. Finally, subsection (10) provides that the clause does not apply to those who work for public authorities where work is carried out mainly or wholly outside the United Kingdom.
The code of practice will be an important part of fulfilling our commitment, and it will assist public authorities to comply with every aspect of the new duty. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Part 7 of the Bill, which comprises clauses 38 to 45, is completely unnecessary and unworkable. It will have negative consequences, whether intended or not; I have some difficulty coming to a conclusion on that one. Perhaps when the Minister speaks later, it will be easier for me to do so. It goes against the wider measures advocated by the Government in the Bill. I will argue those points in turn, but I hope that the Committee will allow common sense to prevail and scrap this part of the Bill.
It is clear that the clauses are unnecessary from the overwhelming lack of evidence from the Government or anyone else that legislation is required. Page 25 of the explanatory notes state that clause 38 is being introduced in order
“to improve the quality of service provided by public authorities, such as the NHS and the police”.
The question is surely why those professionals have not demanded such legislation themselves. I note the submission from the British Medical Association stating that doctors must already pass the international English language testing system to a level set by the General Medical Council or provide evidence to the equivalent. If the Committee does not agree to scrap part 7 of the Bill, will the Minister provide assurances that it will not result in duplication?
The fact is that part 7 in its entirety is merely a duplication of what any employer asks of an applicant: do they have the skills for the role? I challenge any Member here to tell me whether they know of any firefighters turning up to save our lives who have to bring an interpreter with them, or whether any of them have visited a GP and had to explain their symptoms in mime because the GP does not speak English. It simply does not happen. Many of my constituents have terrible problems with the Department for Work and Pensions. I was of the view that that was due in the main to unfair policies, but I had not considered that it is perhaps because the Government employ people who do not speak the language of this country. I have never heard of that, and have never experienced it.
That point is made eloquently by the Royal College of Nursing, which argues against duplicating and undermining the standards being developed by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. That is what it is: an undermining of professional bodies. The fact remains that it is professionals, not Ministers, who have a sophisticated understanding of the level of English required for professional roles. The RCN states:
“We question whether it would be appropriate for ministers to set out standards rather than professional regulators, such as the NMC, as is currently the case.”
Far be it from me to argue for lighter-touch regulation to a Tory Government, but the professionals themselves are safeguarding public services, so it is difficult to envisage a Minister, of whatever party, devising a more sophisticated practice-led assessment of language skills than the professional bodies representing the public sector. The Government are fond of saying that they are fixing the roof while the sun is shining, but here they are putting a leaky tin roof in place of one that functions. Like much of the Bill, regardless of our respective opinions on the rights and wrongs, these provisions simply do not make sense.
The Chair
Order. May I say to Members on the Back Benches that the microphones are very sensitive and are picking up every conversation? I wish to hear only one voice: that of the person speaking.
Anne McLaughlin
Thank you, Mr Owen. Discrimination has increased following the trial of the right-to-rent provisions, which has led to people being judged not to look or sound British and to their having increased difficulty finding accommodation. The exact same prejudice will now face those working in the public sector, with people who sound as if they are not from Britain at risk of spurious complaints and victimisation.
Our public sector workers are doing increasingly difficult work, thanks to the Government’s cuts agenda. They are often working with fewer resources and taking on more responsibilities. It does not take a genius to see that this will be stressful for the worker and for those using the service, nor does it take a particularly high IQ to imagine that a disgruntled and stressed-out member of the public may take out their frustration with their situation on a member of staff. If that person is obviously an immigrant, there is a risk that complaints will be brought against them on the grounds of language ability—a complaint that would then have to be investigated. All that does is waste time and money, and increase the stress levels of everyone involved.
I have seen it myself. I have been in a GP surgery where I heard people muttering about the African receptionist—“Could they not get somebody who can speak English?”—when she was speaking perfectly good English, since it was her first language, as it is for many people coming to this country. All that was different about her was the colour of her skin and her accent. Now those racist mutterings can be turned into formal complaints—[Interruption.] Yes, they can. The Government are legitimising that racism instead of tackling it head on. If I am wrong about the intentions, will the Minister tell us if and how he will assess the implementation of this part of the Bill? If he does not intend this part of the Bill to have such consequences, and if he does in fact care but does not believe that my fears are founded, will he at least consider the possibility that I might be right, assess this at a later stage and be willing to review it if necessary?
Part 7 makes it much more difficult for genuine migrants to integrate. It places a ludicrous burden on public agencies at a time when the Government are asking them to tighten their belts. It punishes those who have come here legally and are trying to get on and contribute to this society. Part 7 legitimises the rantings of racists, who will say, “Well, there is obviously a problem or the Government wouldn’t have to have a law to stop it.” In fact, it goes against much of what people believe the Tory party stands for—not me, incidentally, but some people. Part 7 certainly goes against the principles of the Scottish National party, and I urge all Members to reject clauses 38 to 45.
The Solicitor General
I would like to say that this debate has created more light than heat, but I am afraid that I cannot do so. With the greatest of respect to the hon. Lady, people such as the receptionist she mentioned will be protected by these provisions, safe in the knowledge that they have fulfilled the criteria set out in the code of practice. They have nothing to fear from people who, through racism or prejudice, may wish to make specious claims. I wholly reject her prospectus.
Anne McLaughlin
If the Minister is saying that that receptionist will be protected against spurious complaints, does he mean that nobody is allowed to make a spurious complaint? If so, will it be decided that a complaint is spurious before the receptionist is informed? The stress levels suffered by someone who has had an unlawful complaint made against them are just as bad as they would be if the complaint were founded.
The Solicitor General
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady acknowledged that several parts of the public sector have basic proficiency requirements in place. I am afraid that all of us in a public sector role, including everyone in this building and elsewhere, will be the subject of complaints from time to time. Some of those complaints might be wholly justified; others will not be justified. I do not accept for one minute that these provisions will increase the culture of fear that she has colourfully, but wholly erroneously, painted. She is right to say that some parts of the public sector have minimum standards of English for their staff. The provision underpins and widens that duty so that the rest of the public sector is brought into line with those who are leading the way and being proactive.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank the Minister for giving way—I appreciate it. Which parts of the public sector employ people who do not speak English in a public-facing role? I have listed all the possibilities, but I have never experienced it, and I have seen no evidence that anyone here has experienced it.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for sharing her anecdotal experiences, but the Home Office has done pre-consultation modelling, based on the proportion of over-16s in employment in the public administration, education and healthcare sectors according to 2011 census data—those are important, objective, statutory data obtained from the British population. According to that modelling, about 3.6 million employees are within the scope of the proposed duty and about 1.5 million employees in Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, are subject to English language standards, so an extra 2.1 million employees will be newly affected by the duty. We anticipate that between a low of 8,500 workers and a high of 25,000 workers may not have the required standards of English fluency. There is objective evidence upon which we can base this policy.
The policy is not designed suddenly to change the game or somehow create a wholly new structure that will alter the balance and change societal attitudes towards people who have a heavy accent. I include myself in that—I know the hon. Lady is as proud of her accent as I am proud of mine. We are seeking to standardise and enhance the position of people who have come to this country to work and who might have a different ethnicity or background. They will be employed under the same objective criteria that will be applied to everybody else in the public sector.
The Solicitor General
I will give way in a moment, but first I want to read a highlighted extract from the draft code of practice consultation relating to complaints. I hope that it will help the hon. Lady. Paragraph 4.5 says:
“Public authorities are not obliged by this Code of Practice to respond to complaints that are vexatious, oppressive, threatening or abusive. These should be given their usual dictionary meaning and could be defined as those complaints that are without foundation and/or which are intended to result in harsh or wrongful treatment of the person referred to in the complaint. In these types of circumstances a complaint should not be allowed to continue.”
I commend that paragraph to the House.
Keir Starmer
In so far as the measures extend the existing duties on public authorities to consider the requirement in the first place, they do not go much further than the existing position, but I think that the hon. Lady is pointing at the complaints procedure, which the Minister just touched on. Will he assure the Committee that the only complaints that the provision is intended to open up are complaints against the public authority for failing to carry out its duties, and not complaints made about an individual? That would give a considerable degree of assurance that there is no intention for the measures to allow anyone to say, “I am complaining about X,” when what they are really complaining about is public authority Y, which has not done its job properly. There is a big difference in terms of how the complaints procedure would then be used.
The Solicitor General
I can confirm that paragraph 4.1 of the draft code says:
“This section of the Code is about the procedure a public authority should take should there be a complaint regarding a breach of the fluency duty.”
That means a complaint against the public authority for having breached that duty. There are no sanctions in part 7 that could be applied directly to staff. As I said, it is a duty for the public authority.
Keir Starmer
This is an important point. Can the Minister write to us on that specific issue? It also arises from clause 41(2)(c), according to my reading; I think that he would provide assurance if he wrote to the Committee—to me and other hon. Members—to say that that is the intention of the complaints procedure. One can see the scope otherwise for concern about complaints.
The Solicitor General
I understand entirely, and I am happy to do so. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman and any Committee members concerned about consequences for staff that dismissal would be a matter extremely far down the line in these procedures. We are talking about improving systems. That does not entail an ad hominem attack on individuals; it is about the public authority and any perceived failure on its part.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for the assurance about frivolous and other vexatious complaints. I know from having 9,000 staff of my own that what causes great anxiety is the fact that a complaint has been made to the individual, even if some weeks or months down the line it might be ruled out. If a number of complaints are made about a particular member of staff, that will increase anxiety hugely. The greater the clarity that the Minister can give here, the better. For a member of staff, simply knowing that a complaint might be knocked out in three months does not affect the anxiety that they feel when doing in their job.
The Solicitor General
I take point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. I will write to the Committee, as I have indicated.
On the question of bureaucracy, the measures take a minimalist approach. The code of practice will guide public authorities to align their actions regarding the new duty with existing practice. We expect a minimal expansion to existing procedures to suffice. Our open consultation will allow any concerns about bureaucracy to be raised and taken into account.
Anne McLaughlin
Does that mean that the British Medical Association, for instance, will be allowed to make its own assessment?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady has mentioned a body that operates its own minimum standards. I envisage that where organisations are already doing that work, it will be a fairly easy task for them to satisfy a code of practice, but again, I would be interested to hear what they have to say as part of the consultation. I am sure that the intention is for dovetailing in any expansion of the duty, so that we standardise it across the whole public sector, thanking those particular outliers for being proactive in the area.
Keir Starmer
Again, this is by way of seeking assurance. This discussion is in the context of an Immigration Bill, but the measures will cover all individuals. Can the Minister give an assurance that careful consideration will be given to how the measures apply to individuals with any kind of learning or speech difficulty, regardless of background, ethnicity and so on? There is the potential for impact on people who fall into those categories. I know that that is not the intention, but we would gratefully receive a high level of assurance.
The Solicitor General
I am happy to give that. From my own understanding and experience of such issues, I am extremely keen to ensure that people who are fluent but who might, due to disability, express themselves slightly differently, are not discriminated against in any way.
On the question of setting a single standard, again, to enlarge the point that I was making, because the public sector has such a broad range of customer-facing roles, whether they be heart surgeons or parking enforcement officers, different particular standards will be appropriate. Therefore, the code will guide public authorities to set a standard that is proportionate to the nature of the spoken interaction that is an integral part of each role. To reinforce the point that I just made to the hon. and learned Gentleman about discrimination, public authorities, like all employers, are prohibited from discriminating against members of staff and job applicants by the terms of the Equality Act 2010, under which disability is a protected characteristic. Of course that will be relevant to individuals with a speech impediment.
Anne McLaughlin
I appreciate the Minister letting me butt in so often. He has said that there is a public duty under equalities legislation not to discriminate against a potential employee, but discrimination happens and we know that it happens. It is far harder for someone to find a job if they are black; basically, it is much more difficult. The Committee has heard most of my fears, but my fear on this is that is that, just as landlords feel that they will discriminate whether they really want to or not, these measures will make employers more fearful of employing somebody who might get complaints against them because of language—not because they cannot speak the language fluently, but because they sound and look different. It will make it even harder for people to find employment. All the equalities legislation in the world is only useful if people know how to use it and have the resources to use it.
The Solicitor General
I hear the hon. Lady, but I must remind her that we are talking about public authorities, which have had to, quite rightly, adapt their practices to take into account legislation such as the Equality Act 2010, which consolidated and enhanced a number of other statutes passed over a generation or more, which in turn dealt with racism, disability discrimination and so on. They were Acts of Parliament passed by all parties in this House. I would be as distressed as she if a public authority misused in any way what I would submit are the benign duties in the clause to reverse the progress that we have made. It is not about whether somebody looks or sounds different; it is about basic standards of proficiency and fluency that will improve public services.
Keir Starmer
I apologise for adding to the shopping list of assurances, but it is done, I hope, in the right spirit and with concern that is shared across the House. This problem might have been addressed, but there must be some public authorities that use sign language for some of those deemed to be customers or service users. Those fluent in sign language may not in fact be able to speak fluent English. Perhaps there is an obvious answer to this—if there is, I apologise—but the words “speaks fluent English” in clause 38(8) cause me some concern. There may be an easy reassurance. If there is, I will be assured.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising an issue in which I take a personal interest—the use of British sign language and other means for deaf people to participate in all aspects of our mainstream life. To parenthesise for a moment, I am sure that he would be interested in the work that I am doing to explore why deaf people cannot serve on juries, for example. It seems to me wholly ridiculous, but that is the position at the moment. Perhaps we can talk about that offline.
A British sign language interpreter is of course arguably a reasonable adjustment that is provided under an employer’s duty towards staff with a disability under the Equality Act 2010. That would be part and parcel of a person’s work; so to use it as a basis for suggesting lack of fluency would be wholly wrong and self-defeating. It is important to remember that people with disabilities, with reasonable adjustments, increasingly form part of the mainstream workforce. The provision is not designed to cut across that.
I think we all benefit from the fact that people with different ethnic origins work in our public services. Whatever they sound like and wherever they are from we welcome them all; but it is important—and they would agree—that we make sure there is a basic standard, to ensure that all sections of society have the fullest confidence in our public services. The measure goes a long way to protect our public servants.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I concur with the point that the Solicitor General makes, but I did not necessarily recognise the figures he gave earlier as a description of the problem. They were census data, which did not necessarily relate to the issue. However, let us assume that there is a problem. Is the Minister not concerned that what he wants to do will be undermined by the cuts of the order of 30% in the adult skills budget since 2010, which have had a direct impact on the courses in English for speakers of other languages that give people precisely the skills he is looking for? In the spirit of his proposals will he make representations to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to increase that budget?
The Solicitor General
At this stage what I will say is that those points need to be fed into the consultation, so that in the code of practice we get objective standards for fluency absolutely right. I note from the code of practice that there is a helpful table in the draft suggesting the stages of proficiency that can be equated with various qualifications, such as GCSEs, GCE A-levels or NQFs.
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I would argue needs further discussion. I hope that if, when the code of practice is finalised, the issue he raises is causing problems, that will be reflected in a system that, while still objective, will include an understanding that fluency can sometimes be measured in a non-academic way, which would therefore need to be built into any assessment such as a written test or other proficiency test conducted by the employer or prospective employer when interviewing candidates for a job. That could be an objective standard.
Anne McLaughlin
Is not that the same as allowing the employers to follow their current recruitment processes and make the judgment themselves? If things are going to be that vague, why do not we just continue to allow employers to make the assessment themselves?
The Solicitor General
What we are doing is making sure that the practice spreads. Indeed, some employers do it already; but we think that the duty would spread it throughout the public service. The hon. Lady may well be right; normal assessment processes may be perfectly sufficient. Examples might be a spoken interview or the choice to require an applicant to answer a detailed interview question in English or Welsh, or to possess a relevant qualification, or pass a specifically tailored competency test. It is not a matter of heavy prescription.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. On one level, they are telling us that they are concerned that the proposals will be too bureaucratic, and on another, when I suggest that this is in fact, more flexible, they ask what the point is. There is a point: it is all about spreading best practice through all levels of public service.
The Solicitor General
The clause sets out which public authorities must ensure that each of their workers in customer-facing roles speak fluent English or, in Wales, fluent English or Welsh. Hon. Members will understand that it is important to define the scope of the duty as broadly as possible so that we make sure that all members of the public receive advice, help and support in fluent English or Welsh, regardless of the nature of the public service.
Subsection (1) defines public authorities as any organisation that carries out functions of a public nature. Subsection (2) clarifies that that does not include other bodies that carry out functions on behalf of a public authority. For example, it excludes a private company that appears to the customer to be part of the local council’s services even though the service is actually provided by an independent organisation through a contract with the local authority. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify that this duty will apply in Scotland only if a public authority exercises functions which relate to a reserved matter.
Subsection (5) limits the scope of the bodies included in this duty very slightly to exclude the security services, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters. Subsection (6) provides that a relevant Minister may add, modify or remove the name of a body in relation to this list. The term “a relevant Minister” is defined in clause 44 to include either the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The regulation-making power to amend the list of public authorities must be done in accordance with the provisions that relate to regulations in clause 53.
That brings me to Government amendments 37 to 39. These technical amendments ensure that clause 53 applies to regulations made by either the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under part 7.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Power to expand meaning of person working for public authority
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Solicitor General
Clause 40 provides a power to make regulations to expand the meaning of a person in respect of whom this duty applies. Should the relevant Minister—the Minister of the Cabinet Office or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—choose to make such regulations, the duty would apply to customer-facing staff of contractors and subcontractors delivering a public service through an arrangement with a public authority. To comply with the statutory duty in clause 38, public authorities need to have regard to the code of practice to ensure that the customer-facing staff of these organisations, as well as their own directly engaged staff, meet the language standard.
Public authorities need to make sure, first, that the standard of fluency applied is proportionate to the nature of each customer-facing role; and secondly that their complaints process allows citizens to report their experience of a customer-facing worker employed by such organisations who is not speaking fluent English. Hon. Members will be aware from our previous debate about the consultation that is now live that respondents are asked explicitly for their views on the impact of expanding the scope of the duty to the staff of private and third-sector suppliers. We will publish those views as part of the Government response to the consultation. However, any expansion of this duty to apply to the staff of private and third-sector providers of services will involve separate consultation before any regulations are made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Application of Part to Wales
Anne McLaughlin
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 43, page 39, line 23, at end insert—
‘(4) This Part does not apply to Scotland.”
I have set out why I do not want this measure to be part of United Kingdom legislation, so this is really just to make the argument that if the rest of the United Kingdom does, indeed, want it—I have set out the different experiences of Members in the different countries—then it should not stand in Scotland.
The Solicitor General
I gently remind the hon. Lady that the title of clause 43 is “Application of Part to Wales”. I see the point she is making, so I do not want to make too lawyerly a point, but the provision relates to Wales rather than Scotland.
The purpose of the hon. Lady’s amendment is to exclude Scotland from the whole of part 7. Subsections (3) and (4) of clause 39—the governing clause of this part of the Bill—provide that the requirement for customer-facing public sector workers to speak fluent English applies in Scotland only to the extent that a public authority exercises functions related to a reserved matter.
Hon. Members may not be aware of a letter sent on 3 November from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights in the Scottish Government, Mr Alex Neil, to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. In that letter, Mr Neil acknowledges that this part of the Bill will only apply to reserved matters, and we agree that any further extension into devolved matters would require a legislative consent motion.
I am grateful to Mr Neil and his team for the work that has been done with members of the British Government and the discussions with Scottish Government officials that have resulted in this proposal. I am also grateful to him for instructing his officials to ensure that the Cabinet Office received every support in understanding the landscape of the reserve public sector in Scotland. Such lines of contact have been established, and indeed the consultation continues. For all those reasons, I very much hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow North East will withdraw the amendment.
Anne McLaughlin
On a point of clarification, Mr Owen. Being a new MP and a new member of the Committee, I am a bit confused by the gentle reminder that the Minister gave me. Amendment 246 says:
“This Part does not apply to Scotland.”
I am not entirely sure what the Minister was referring to when he mentioned Wales—I am just looking for a bit of guidance on that. Do we have different pieces of paper?
The Chair
I will try to help the hon. Lady. The title of clause 43 is:
“Application of Part to Wales”.
It is not possible to amend the title of a clause; I think the Minister was explaining that. Does the hon. Lady wish to withdraw the amendment?
The Solicitor General
As alluded to in the previous debate, clause 43 sets out how part 7 will apply to public authorities exercising functions of a public nature in Wales. I am grateful to the Clerk to the Committee for confirming my understanding that the clause title is not an amendable part of the Bill but an indicative description of the clause.
James Brokenshire
The clause inserts a new section in the Immigration Act 2014 to provide a power to impose a charge on employers sponsoring non-European economic area skilled migrants. In addition, it contains provision for regulations to be made regarding the charge. The immigration skills charge will help to address current and projected skills needs in the UK economy and contribute to reducing net migration. The intention behind the charge is to encourage employers to think differently about their recruitment so that, where possible, they recruit and train up resident workers.
Paul Blomfield
I do not disagree with the principle, which is right, but I wish to explore some of the detail.
I represent the University of Sheffield, which is involved in apprenticeship training. As I understand the proposals, the money raised from the charge will go to the Consolidated Fund to assist in addressing the skills gap in the UK. The university’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, which has been held up as a model by the Government, is involved in higher apprenticeship training, much of which is undertaken by academics who are recruited through the tier 2 route. It appears nonsensical to make a levy on the University of Sheffield and other universities and educational institutions for recruiting tier 2 workers who are actively involved in filling the skills gap. What does the Minister think about that issue?
Similarly, we have received representations from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing about the position in the health service where, because of skills shortages, the Government and the NHS are actively recruiting from abroad. Given the financial pressures on the NHS, does it make sense to levy a skills charge on it? Perhaps that is not the Government’s intent and I have misunderstood the provisions of the Bill, in which case I will be grateful if the Minister can clarify the position on both those points.
James Brokenshire
Perhaps I should underline that employers over time should reduce their demand for migrant labour. We recognise that many employers invest in training, but throughout the economy investment in training has been declining over 20 years and use of tier 2 visas is up by 30% if we compare 2010 with 2014. We want to encourage employers to invest in upskilling our resident work force and reduce reliance on migrant labour. The immigration skills charge will fund training of the resident work force, including apprenticeships.
The hon. Gentleman’s argument is whether in principle there should be some exemptions. That is a question that we have asked the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been asked to advise on the charge’s impact on different employers. The Government will consider the MAC’s advice in due course; we expect to receive its full advice next month. The MAC will make recommendations, including on the scope and level of the charge. We are setting out the principle. We have asked the MAC to consider some of these details, and we will reflect on its recommendations and implementation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Power to make passport fees regulations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Brokenshire
Clause 47 provides new powers to make regulations to charge fees in respect of passport and travel document functions. The measures in the clause focus on increasing the transparency of how passport fees are set.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
New Clause 14
Private hire vehicles etc
‘(1) Schedule (Private hire vehicles etc) (private hire vehicles etc) has effect.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision which—
(a) has a similar effect to the amendments made by Schedule (Private hire vehicles etc), and
(b) applies in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may—
(a) amend, repeal or revoke any enactment;
(b) confer functions on any person.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may not confer functions on—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland,
(c) a Northern Ireland Minister, or
(d) a Northern Ireland department.
(5) In this section “enactment” includes—
(a) an enactment contained in subordinate legislation within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978;
(b) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(c) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, Northern Ireland legislation.”—(James Brokenshire.)
This new clause inserts a new Schedule NS1 which amends the licensing regimes for taxis and private hire vehicles in England and Wales. It also contains a regulation-making power to amend the legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland to equivalent effect as that Schedule.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Private hire vehicles etc.
Government amendment 245.
James Brokenshire
We move to new clauses, having considered the main substantive provisions of the Bill. New clause 14 requires immigration checks and continuing compliance with immigration laws as part of the existing licensing regime for taxis and private hire vehicles. It does so by adapting existing provisions for private hire vehicles in London in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 and for taxis and private hire vehicles in the rest of England and Wales in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976.
The new clause seeks to prevent illegal migrants and migrants whose status does not permit them to work from holding taxi and private hire driver and operator licences. It is important to note that, because the majority of drivers are self-employed, they are not subject to existing right to work checks. In our judgment, that leaves scope for the sector to be exploited by illegal workers.
Licensing authorities already conduct checks to determine whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a driver or operator licence. However, a licensing authority has discretion as to many of the checks that it undertakes to satisfy itself that someone passes the fit and proper person test. Many licensing authorities make immigration checks, but they are advisory at present. The new clause will make immigration checks mandatory and embed immigration safeguards in the existing licensing regime.
New clause 14 gives effect to new schedule 1, which amends the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 for private hire vehicles in London and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in respect of taxis and private hire vehicles in the rest of England and Wales. The new provisions also make relevant changes so that the same measures can be implemented in London, where the taxi licensing regime is slightly different, by amending the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869.
We are in the process of consulting with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government with a view to making similar changes to the licensing legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the Bill or, if that is not possible, by regulations, for which provision is made in the new clause.
I will now comment in more depth on new schedule 1, the main meat of the provisions. On the changes to the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 for London, first, the provision ensures that where someone’s immigration leave is time-limited to less than the statutory length for a driver or operator licence, the licence will be issued for a duration that does not exceed the applicant’s period of leave. If someone has so-called section 3C leave under the Immigration Act 1971, because they have, for example, made a valid application to the Home Office to extend their leave, any licence granted will be limited to a period not exceeding six months.
Secondly, if someone is disqualified from continuing to hold a driver or operator licence for immigration reasons, they must return their licence, any copy and their driver’s badge to the licensing authority. Someone who fails to return their licence within seven days without reasonable cause will be committing an offence and, on summary conviction, liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale and, in the case of a continuing offence, a daily fine for each day they fail to return the documents after conviction. Thirdly, the grounds for disqualification—this is for someone who already holds a licence—will include that someone has no lawful status in the UK, or has no right to undertake the work in question.
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 are similarly amended for operator and driver licences. In addition, the new schedule provides that a licence must not be granted under those Acts to someone who is disqualified by their immigration status. The licensing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State in making a decision about someone’s immigration status. Importantly, the new schedule also specifies that the conviction of immigration offences and the requirement to pay penalties since the licence was issued are grounds to revoke a driver or operator licence. That is our approach, which intends to catch operators who may seek to engage people who are in the country unlawfully.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I would like further clarification from the Minister; I did not want to intervene in case he was coming on to this. Will he talk us through the logistics of how the legislation will be enforced?
I welcome the recommendations. I have not gone through the details of them, but it seems that currently different local authorities have different legislation and rules, so there can be confusion about who is responsible for enforcement of the local authority recommendations when people cross the border. Will the Minister talk a little more about how the legislation will be enforced and who will be responsible? He mentioned a seven-day period and said that the local authority would then have to enforce this. How does the local authority find out about that? What will happen with on-the-ground resources to enable the local authority to act? What happens if someone is in violation—will the Home Office or the local authority be responsible for that? I ask for practical ways in which the legislation will work.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her probing questions about enforcement. It is worth underlining that some licensing authorities are already doing basic right to work checks. That is what we are seeking to embed within the overall licensing regime.
Sarah Champion
I would like just a little more information. At the moment, if someone fails the fit and proper person test they can appeal through a magistrates court. Is it correct that under these measures that right would go and it would become a straight immigration issue?
James Brokenshire
Let us look at the provisions. Paragraph 12 of the new schedule amends the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 as follows:
“In section 62(1) (suspension and revocation of operators’ licences) before the “or”…insert…“…that the operator has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty”.
The point is that that will be a matter of established fact. The terms are further defined in proposed new section 79B of the 1976 Act, which is inserted by the new schedule, and defines immigration offences and immigration penalties. The measures will be embedded within the overall framework of the licensing arrangements. If the relevant local authority were, for example, to seek to revoke or suspend a licence, a legal process would no doubt be followed. The point is that it would be made clear whether an operator had been subject to these specific measures, because of the nature of the definitions.
The fit and proper person test is built in. It takes place when someone is applying for a licence. Immigration offences are a clear factor that will have to be weighed in any determination of whether someone is a fit and proper person. If someone does not have the right to be here, the new provisions make it clear that they should not be considered a fit and proper person. That is how we are embedding the measures within the existing process. We believe their operation can be effected smoothly. We will issue guidance, as I have already indicated, to assist local authorities in the implementation of the provisions.
This is a question of raising standards, to ensure that abuse does not take place within the sector. These are positive and important new provisions, which will see immigration enforcement agencies working with local authorities—something that, as I have indicated during our discussions, I strongly support. If we can get our activities embedded well, in places where immigration enforcement officers may come across intelligence and information, we can work smartly with other agencies such as local authorities to raise standards more broadly and root out abuse and rogue operators. The measures are important and distinct, and will, we hope, not only deal with immigration offending and people who are in the country unlawfully and engaging in employment or contracts for services, but raise standards in the sector more generally.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Supply of information to Secretary of State
‘(1) Section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supply of information to Secretary of State) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (10).
(2) For the heading substitute “Power to supply information etc to Secretary of State”.
(3) In subsection (1) for paragraphs (a) to (f) substitute—
“(a) a public authority, or
(b) any specified person, for purposes specified in relation to that person.”
(4) In subsection (1A) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b) for “a person listed in subsection (1) or someone acting on his behalf” substitute “a public authority or someone acting on behalf of a public authority”.
(5) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) This section does not apply to—
(a) information which is held by the Crown Prosecution Service, or
(b) a document or article which comes into the possession of, or is discovered by, the Crown Prosecution Service, or someone acting on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service,
if section 40 of the UK Borders Act 2007 applies to the information, document or article.”
(6) After subsection (2A) insert—
“(2B) Subsection (2A)(a) does not affect any other power of the Secretary of State to retain a document or article.”
(7) In subsection (3) after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) anything else that is done in connection with the exercise of a function under any of the Immigration Acts;”.
(8) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) “Public authority” means a person with functions of a public nature but does not include—
(a) Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs,
(b) either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament,
(c) the Scottish Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in the Scottish Parliament,
(d) the National Assembly for Wales or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly, or
(e) the Northern Ireland Assembly or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly.”
(9) Omit subsection (4).
(10) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Nothing in this section authorises information, a document or an article to be supplied if to do so would contravene a restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
(11) After section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 insert—
“20A Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State
(1) This section applies to a nationality document which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing is lawfully in the possession of a person listed in Schedule A1.
(2) The Secretary of State may direct the person to supply the document to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State suspects that—
(a) a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and
(b) the document may facilitate the removal.
(3) A person to whom a direction is given must, as soon as is practicable, supply the document to the Secretary of State.
(4) If the document was originally created in hard copy form and the person possesses the original document, it must be supplied to the Secretary of State unless it is required by the person for the performance of any of the person’s functions.
(5) If the original document is required by the person for the performance of any of the person’s functions—
(a) the person must, as soon as is practicable, supply a copy of the document to the Secretary of State, and
(b) if subsequently the person no longer requires the original document, the person must supply it to the Secretary of State as soon as is practicable after it is no longer required.
(6) Subsection (5)(b) does not apply if the Secretary of State notifies the person that the original document is no longer required.
(7) If subsection (5) applies the person may make a copy of the original document before supplying it to the Secretary of State.
(8) The Secretary of State may retain a nationality document supplied under this section while the Secretary of State suspects that—
(a) a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts, and
(b) retention of the document may facilitate the removal.
(9) Subsection (8) does not affect any other power of the Secretary of State to retain a document.
(10) The Secretary of State may dispose of a nationality document supplied under this section in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(11) Nothing in this section authorises or requires a document to be supplied if to do so would contravene a restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(12) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule A1 so as to add, modify or remove a reference to a person or description of person.
(13) Regulations under subsection (12) may not amend Schedule A1 so as to apply this section to—
(a) either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament,
(b) the Scottish Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in the Scottish Parliament,
(c) the National Assembly for Wales or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly, or
(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in that Assembly.
(14) In this section “nationality document” means a document which might—
(a) establish a person’s identity, nationality or citizenship, or
(b) indicate the place from which a person has travelled to the United Kingdom or to which a person is proposing to go.”
(12) In section 166 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (regulations and orders)—
(a) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) No regulations under section 20A(12) which amend Schedule A1 so as to—
(a) add a reference to a person or description of person, or
(b) modify a reference to a person or description of person otherwise than in consequence of a change of name or transfer of functions,
are to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”, and
(b) in subsection (6), before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(ab) under section 20A(12) and which falls within subsection (5A),”.’
(13) Before Schedule 1 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 insert the Schedule A1 set out in Schedule (Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State: persons to whom duty applies).”—(The Solicitor General.)
This amendment expands the information gateway in section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for the voluntary supply of information to the Secretary of State for immigration purposes. It also places a duty on authorities listed in new Schedule A1 to that Act (see NS2) to supply nationality documents to the Secretary of State where directed to do so.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Solicitor General
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 2—Duty to supply nationality documents to Secretary of State: persons to whom duty applies.
The Solicitor General
The new clause expands the existing information gateway in section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for the voluntary supply of information to the Secretary of State for immigration purposes. It also places a duty on the authorities listed in new schedule 2 to supply nationality documents to the Secretary of State where directed to do so.
At the moment, in addition to common-law data-sharing powers, section 20 of the 1999 Act allows for information and articles from specified public authorities, such as the police and the National Crime Agency, to be supplied to the Secretary of State for immigration purposes. We would like to ensure that other public authorities that may find themselves in possession of information or documents that may be used for immigration purposes have clear statutory authority to pass those to the Home Office. The new clause will ensure that any public authority, other than those expressly excluded, may provide information and documents to the Secretary of State for immigration purposes, should it wish to do so.
We also want the Secretary of State to be able to require the provision of nationality documents that are lawfully in the possession of specified public authorities. That power would be exercisable where the Secretary of State suspects that a person to whom the document relates may be liable to removal from the United Kingdom in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts and that the document may facilitate the removal.
I want to make it abundantly clear that the new clause does not require the listed bodies to collect data or information on behalf of the Secretary of State or to seize documents from people, as it applies only where the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that a document is already lawfully in a body’s possession—that is to say, that it holds the document for the purposes of its functions.
To give an example, a person may be arrested for overstaying his visa in the UK. Immigration officers search his home for a passport or other documentation that will help with obtaining an emergency travel document from his embassy. They do not find it, but they do discover a letter to him from his local council. An immigration officer can then contact the council and ask whether it has taken a copy of that person’s passport or ID card, or a record of the number. Under the new powers, if the council has such a document, the immigration officer may direct that it is sent to the relevant immigration team. If the council confirms that it does not have such a document, there is no further action for it to take.
In a nutshell, we believe that it is important that the public sector works together to achieve effective immigration control. For those reasons, I ask that new clause 15 and new schedule 2 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 15 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Detention etc. by immigration officers in Scotland
‘(1) Section 26B(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (interpretation of Part 3) is amended as follows.
(2) In the definition of “immigration offence”—
(a) after “means” insert “— (a)”, and
(b) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “, or
(b) (insofar as it is not an offence within paragraph (a)) an offence under the Immigration Acts or in relation to which a power of arrest is conferred on an immigration officer by the Immigration Acts;”.
(3) In the definition of “immigration enforcement offence”, omit paragraph (a).’—(The Solicitor General.)
This amendment ensures that the Scottish powers of detention prior to arrest and of arrest without warrant apply to all immigration offences contained in, or for which an immigration officer has a power of arrest under, the Immigration Acts. It ensures consistency in the immigration-related criminal investigation powers of immigration officers across the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Solicitor General
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The aim of new clause 16 is to ensure that there is consistency in the immigration-related criminal investigation powers of immigration officers across the United Kingdom. As I have mentioned in this Committee, we have been involved in a dialogue with the Scottish Government to ensure that this clause, as with others in the Bill, will enable immigration officers to work effectively within the Scottish criminal justice system.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a person may be arrested and interviewed in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 until a decision is made on whether they should be charged with the offence. In Scotland, that differs to the extent that in most circumstances, a suspect can currently only be questioned if they are detained but not yet arrested. Once the suspect is arrested, the general rule is that they cannot be questioned. That means that immigration officers in Scotland cannot properly investigate immigration-related offences for which they have a power of arrest under the Immigration Acts, but do not have the power to detain pending arrest.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Time limit on detention—
In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) ubject to regulations under subsection (6), a person detained under this paragraph must be released on bail in accordance with Schedule 5 to the Immigration Act 2016 after no later than the twenty-eighth day following that on which the person was detained.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to vary by category of person the time limit under subsection (5).”
Paul Blomfield
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am very pleased to be speaking to new clauses 1 and 3, were tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), a Conservative. I was delighted to have the opportunity to add my name to them so that they can be debated by the Committee. I think we are moving into new territory here, and I hope that the cross-party consensus that is reflected in my decision to support the clauses will be reflected in our deliberations.
In the previous Parliament I was pleased to serve as vice-chair of an inquiry into immigration detention on a panel that included the hon. Member for Bedford, along with other colleagues from the Government Benches, including the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and a former Conservative Cabinet Member, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). Opposition Members were in a minority on the inquiry panel, which drew parliamentarians from both Houses, including many with huge experience such as a retired Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons.
The inquiry was brought together by the all-party group on migration and the all-party group on refugees. Our recommendations, which were prepared after eight months of deliberation, included the limits on detention contained in new clauses 1 and 3. The recommendations were endorsed by the House of Commons on 10 September. The new clauses therefore build on the work of the inquiry and provide expression for the will of the House by introducing limits on indefinite immigration detention. This is not a particularly controversial proposal: we are unusual in this country in having no limit on administrative detention for immigration purposes.
Sadly, we have become increasingly dependent on detention, and that has been the case under successive Governments. This is not a party political point. Detention takes place in immigration removal centres, and the clue for their purpose should be in the name. They are intended for short-term stays, but we have become increasingly reliant on them, and as the use of detention has expanded rapidly over the last two decades, so has the size of the estate. In 1993, there were 250 detention places available in the UK; by 2009 the number had risen to 2,665, and by the beginning of this year it had risen to 3,915. The number of people entering detention in the year to June 2015 was just over 32,000—up 10% on the previous year. In contrast, Sweden, a country that in most years receives something like three times the number of asylum applications—I accept that immigration detention does not simply relate to asylum; nevertheless, there are much larger demands on that much smaller country—has 2,893 places, while Germany has just over 4,300.
Home Office policy, which is a good starting point, states that
“detention must be used sparingly”.
The reality is clearly different. Members will be aware of a number of high-profile incidents in immigration removal centres, including deaths and allegations of sexual assault. That was reflected in the evidence heard by our inquiry. In our first oral evidence session, we heard from non-governmental organisations and medical experts. Most powerfully, we heard from people who were at that time in detention centres via a phone link to immigration removal centres.
One young man from a disputed territory on the Cameroon-Nigeria border told us his story. He said that he had been trafficked to Hungary as a 16-year-old, where he was beaten, raped and tortured. He managed to escape and eventually made his way to Heathrow using a false passport, which was discovered on his arrival. He was then detained. We asked him how long he had been detained for. He told us that he had been detained for three years in the immigration removal centre. His detention conflicts with three stated aims of the Home Office: first, that those who have been trafficked should not be detained; secondly, that those who have been tortured should not be detained; and, thirdly, that detention should be for the shortest possible period.
New clause 1 seeks to put those Government aims on torture and trafficking in the Bill, and to add victims of sexual violence and pregnant women to the category of people not to be detained. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, following an unannounced inspection of Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre earlier this year, said to the Government:
“Procedures to ensure the most vulnerable women are never detained should be strengthened and managers held accountable for ensuring they are applied consistently.”
Following a case that was reported on 6 October, I understand that the Home Office is reviewing its policy on the detention of pregnant asylum seekers. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on where that review stands.
New clause 3 seeks to deal with the wider issue of indefinite detention, the impact of which was a constant theme of our inquiry, and about which we received some striking testimony. Time and again we were told that detention was worse than prison. Initially, a number of us were puzzled by that, because we were not talking about the criminal justice system—many of those people demonstrate in due course that they have the right to be here—but those who were detained said that people in prison at least know when they will get out. As one former detainee told us:
“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”
Medical experts told us that the sense of being in limbo and the hopelessness and despair leads to deteriorating mental health. One told us that those who are detained for more than 30 days have significantly higher mental health problems.
However, it is not just the impact on those who are detained. A team leader at the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of a time limit encourages poor caseworking and lazy procedures in the Home Office. He told us that one quarter of the cases of prolonged detention that the prisons inspectorate had considered were the result of inefficient casework. That is not because it was inappropriate for people to be released. Despite being called immigration removal workers, we found—this is an important point—that most people who leave detention do so for reasons other than being removed from the UK. According to the latest statistics produced by the Government, more than half the detainees are released back into the UK. The system is therefore not only bad for those involved, but expensive and a waste of public resources, at a time when the Chancellor is looking for savings. Detaining someone costs £36,000 per year. Alternatives to detention, proved to be more effective in other countries, are significantly cheaper; so alternatives driven by imposing such a limit would save taxpayers’ money.
The recommendation to set a maximum time limit in statute, which new clause 3 would introduce, would not simply right the wrong of indefinite detention, but change the culture endemic in the system. By doing so, it would meet the aims of the Home Office’s own guidance, which is about detention being used more sparingly and only as a genuine last resort to effect removal. The proposed limit of 28 days reflects best practice in other countries and is workable for the Home Office, given that in the first three quarters of 2014 only 37% were detained for longer. It also reflects evidence about the mental health impact on those detained for more than a month.
Deprivation of liberty should never be a decision taken lightly or arbitrarily. Decisions are taken by relatively junior officials, with no automatic judicial oversight. With no time limit in place, it has become too easy for people to be detained for months on end, with no meaningful way to challenge their continued detention. The introduction of a time limit and the reduction in reliance on detention represents a significant change—it is in line with what happens in other countries, but it is a significant change for us. Therefore, in order to detain fewer people for shorter periods of time, the Government will need to introduce a much wider range of community-based alternatives.
In the report of the inquiry panel that I mentioned earlier, we gave a number of examples of such alternatives from other places, including the United States—we are not talking about countries that might be perceived as a soft touch. Indeed, Australia, a country whose immigration system is often held up as an example of toughness, has also developed constructive, effective and much cheaper alternatives to detention. Those alternatives allow people to remain in communities while their cases are being resolved, including when making arrangements to leave the country. Not only are the alternatives better; as I have said, they also cost less and are more successful, because they have higher compliance rates in terms of people’s willingness to return.
There is a recent UK precedent. When the coalition Government committed to reduce the number of children detained, they introduced the family returns process. The House of Commons Library described its design as
“to encourage refused families to comply with instructions to depart from the UK at an earlier stage, such as by giving them more control over the circumstances of their departure”—
and it worked. There has been a dramatic fall in the number of children detained, and the Home Office’s own evaluation of the scheme found most families compliant with the process, with no increase in absconding.
Gavin Newlands
They say that a country should be judged based on how it treats the most vulnerable, but the way that we have treated people who are attempting to gain asylum into the UK has been, at times, shocking.
The UK is the only country in Europe that uses detention with no official end date and that should shame us all. I am sure that I am not the only one who has been appalled at some of the detention stories that we have read about or seen on television. In particular, “The Glasgow Girls” served as a harrowing reminder of the cruelty that the UK’s detention policy brings about. Even though the policy of detaining children was ended in 2010, the Scottish Refugee Council has highlighted that children are wrongly assessed as being of adult age and therefore are still being detained. The council says:
“A small number of children are still detained at the end of the asylum process, after their case is heard by an independent panel, in Cedar’s Pre-Departure Accommodation. It is run by private companies…with welfare services provided by Children’s Charity Barnardo’s. This ‘open’ facility is designed as a last resort, before families are removed to their countries of origin. But there are still concerns about the affect its use has on children—many of whom are sent from Scotland on their way to their countries of origin.
In addition, some children who have been wrongly age assessed as adults find themselves detained, often for long periods of time.”
I hope that the new clause serves as a catalyst for further investigation, so that these young people/children are treated with dignity and respect, and are not detained full-stop. Westminster might still favour the policy of detention, but I think that we all agree that detaining young people is cruel and inhumane, and I ask the Immigration Minister to look further at this issue.
The case of Souleymane, who was detained for three and a half years, was highlighted in the detention inquiry report, and it serves as another cruel reminder of the policy of detention. There is no excuse for such a long period of detention. The case highlighted that detainees were being transported from one detention centre to another. The length of time that Souleymane spent in detention had an obvious and significant impact on his mental health, and I must ask, is that something that we are proud of?
New clause 3 does not go far enough, in that it has a caveat that I do not agree with. Nevertheless, it is a massive step in the right direction. Again, I want to see the ending of the policy of detention, as it is not a sign of the caring and compassionate country that I recognise the UK to be. The new clause will leave the provision for the Home Secretary to detain someone beyond 28 days by varying the time limit by category of person. In and of itself, it does not prevent cases such as that of Souleymane from happening again, as it hands the Home Secretary a wide discretionary power to overcome the 28-day obstacle.
Also, the parliamentary inquiry report suggested that the longer an individual is detained, the less likely it is that they will be removed from the UK. For example, the report found that, of the 178 people who have been detained for 12 months or more, 57% of them were ultimately released.
In talking about detention, I must use this opportunity to praise the work of the Scottish Refugee Council and other community-based organisations and groups that support asylum seekers on the frontline. Regardless of our political views, we should extend a debt of gratitude to those groups for the fantastic and at times difficult work that they do. The Bill and this provision in particular will have a significant impact on their work, and it is important that we support them when the Bill becomes law. Therefore, I ask the Immigration Minister to take time to meet groups such as the Scottish Refugee Council to learn more about the issues that they face, and to find out what support they need to perform their important jobs.
Detaining someone for any period of time is not something that we should be proud of. These detention centres are a symbol of the cruel approach that successive UK Governments have adopted with regard to asylum seekers. That is why we in the SNP do not think that the new clause goes far enough. The SNP policy on asylum seekers is more progressive. We want asylum seekers to have the chance to work, earn a living, pay tax and contribute to the community while they are waiting for a decision to be made on their application. Economically that makes sense but, more importantly, it is the right and moral thing to do.
Keir Starmer
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central’s new clause and I pay tribute to the part he played in the report to which he referred. As he said, the report was powerful and strong recommendations were made. The key recommendations from the report were, first, that there should a limit of 28 days on the length of time anyone can held in immigration detention. Secondly, detention is currently used disproportionately frequently, resulting in too many instances of detention. The presumption, in theory and practice, should be in favour of community-based resolutions and against detention. Thirdly, decisions to detain should be very rare and detention should be for the shortest possible time and only to effect removal. Fourthly, the Government should learn from international best practice and introduce a much wider range of alternatives to detention than are currently used in the UK.
This is a real concern, a growing concern and a cross-party concern. I know that the Stephen Shaw work has been done and there is a report. I think that that mainly touches on welfare, but I will be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong. The new clause is important because it goes well beyond welfare issues; it is a point of real principle. In that spirit I support it.
Anne McLaughlin
In the immigration debate that took place in the Chamber, I spoke about a child who had been in detention. I know that the policy, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, is no longer to detain children, but I want to repeat what I said about that child, and I will explain why.
I talked about a 10-year-old boy who was detained with his mother in Dungavel in Scotland and was then moved to Yarl’s Wood. He lost 10 lb in three weeks and lost so much hope that he turned to his mother one day and whispered, “It would be easier if we died. Mummy, please can we die?” I appreciate that there is not a person in this room—I have absolutely no doubt—who, if that child were standing in front of them, would not do whatever they could to help that child. This was somebody I knew pretty well.
Okay, so we only detain adults now, but I am not willing to believe that there is any Member here who, if they had a woman standing in front of them who had been through so much trouble to get here, who was a victim of sexual violence, and they could make the decision about that one person standing there, having heard her story, would not help her. I do not believe that any of us would not use the key that we have to free her from detention if we were able to do it. They are not standing in front of us now, but we are the ones who hold the key to whether those people suffer in the way that many hon. Members have described. That mother wanted to comfort her child. She wanted to reassure her child that it would be over soon, that “this will be happening” in two weeks or one week, three days or three months or whatever, but she could not. She could not reassure herself because she had no idea how long they were going to be there.
I think that the worst thing for people is not having a clue when or where it is going to end. I visited a family in Dungavel a number of years ago, as an elected Member of the Scottish Parliament and I felt intimidated. I felt intimidated by the surroundings and the uniforms, by the big jangle of the keys, by the prison-like atmosphere and the fact that I was fingerprinted. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and they fingerprinted me as I went in. If I felt intimidated, what must it feel like to somebody who has absolutely no control over their life, and has not had any for a long time because they have had to flee their country and ask for help in a foreign country? I cannot imagine it.
I pay tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has done, to the organisations that support people in detention. I particularly encourage the organisations that demonstrate outside such facilities to continue to do so, because it makes a big difference to the people inside. There was a demonstration at Dungavel a couple of weeks ago. I know people who went, although I was unable to attend.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady is making her case and has indicated that she thinks that the measures do not go far enough. Just so that I understand, does she believe that there is a role at all for detention in immigration removal?
Anne McLaughlin
As a last resort. I have never said that we should never detain anybody, but detention is to be used as a last resort. In fact, I think the Minister himself said that the power to detain should be exercised only sparingly and for the shortest possible time. I do not know whether that is the case, but it should be the case.
If it is for the shortest possible time, that is a good argument for having a time limit in statute. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, who said—I think the report of the inquiry into the use of immigration detention in the UK also made the point—that, without a time limit, the casework will suffer. We are all human beings. I am a deadlines kind of person; I do things at the deadline. I would love to be the kind of person who does things in preparation for a deadline, and I am always telling myself that I will be that kind of person, but we are all human and we all work to deadlines. If there is no deadline, of course things take a lot longer.
I also wanted to say something about the categories of people who could not be detained if the new clause were accepted. They would include people who have been trafficked. In an earlier sitting, several Conservative Members and I had a debate about people allowing themselves to be trafficked. I was pretty upset at the time, as were a lot of people, but I realise now how that misunderstanding came about: it is because there is an awful lot of talk in the media about people trafficking when it is actually people smuggling. I accept that is not the fault of the people who pick up the term, but the language that we use is extremely important. If we all accept that trafficking involves coercion and is done against the person’s will and that those people have effectively been kidnapped, I hope that we can accept that detention is an absolutely dreadful experience for them and affects them even more severely. I certainly support not detaining that group of people.
On the assisted returns project, I reassure the Minister, as I have said, that I understand that sometimes people must be detained. I also understand that sometimes they must be deported—removed from this country—because not everyone is entitled to live here. If that is done, it is far better to continue with schemes such as the family returns project. I have constituents and friends who do not want to return because their memories are of the country that they came from as it was when they left. All they need is reassurance from somebody that they trust that it is not the way it was, that it is safe for them and that there will be provisions and protections for them.
Most people who come to live in this country do so in such circumstances. They do not come here because they desperately want to live here. Most people would rather live in the country that they have come from. In leaving, they are leaving their family, their friends, their neighbourhood and the school that they went to. Most people do not want to give that up. Sometimes they need reassurance that they will be protected and that life is very different in the country that we are returning them to. That is why the approach must not be to criminalise them, lock them up or refuse to tell them when or if they will be leaving. The approach should be more humane than that, and should be about working with them rather than against them.
Sarah Champion
I will speak very briefly to the new clauses, because they seem logical and non-contentious. I am particularly pleased that they have been tabled in a cross-party manner and that they were developed from a cross-party inquiry by the all-party groups on refugees and on migration. They build on existing legislation, such the Modern Slavery Act 2015; that is particularly true of new clause 1.
We whizzed through all the new clauses and amendments, so I want to read the explanatory statement to new clause 1, which
“would provide that pregnant women, victims of trafficking, torture and sexual violence, and any other group prescribed by the Secretary of State, may not be detained pending an examination or decision by an immigration officer.”
I hope that the groups prescribed by the Secretary of State would include vulnerable adults, particularly those with a learning age that is deemed to be under 18.
I want to focus on women, pre-empting some of the arguments that Ministers might make against the measures, particularly new clause 1. The organisation Women For Refugee Women has said that 72% of asylum seekers have been raped as part of the persecution that they are fleeing, and almost all have been victims of gender-related persecution. I ask the Minister to consider that. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees detention guidelines state:
“Victims of torture and other serious physical, psychological or sexual violence also need special attention and should generally not be detained.”
I would also like to draw to the Committee’s attention the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is working hard to end sexual violence in conflict by protecting survivors and actively prosecuting perpetrators. It seems to me irrational that while the FCO is working so hard and courageously, and receiving great commendation internationally for doing so, the Bill will effectively re-traumatise victims who have crossed borders to find safety in this country. It is also my understanding that the Home Office’s policy is to detain pregnant women only in exceptional circumstances. I therefore ask Ministers to give serious consideration to new clauses 1 and 3.
James Brokenshire
We have had a wide-ranging debate on an area of policy that is challenging and difficult. I say that because a significant proportion of those in immigration removal centres will be foreign national offenders. There has been a lot of discussion about asylum claimants, but if someone has made a claim for asylum, they should be receiving humanitarian protection. Hon. Members will equally know, for example, that we have suspended the detained fast track—a decision I took—to ensure that appropriate issues about vulnerability can be properly reflected in the arrangements.
There is a real challenge, about which I caution hon. Members, because if the official Opposition vote for new clause 3, they will be voting for a change of their policy. I note that exclusions were previously advanced for foreign national offenders and other groups, in recognition of some of the complexities and other challenges in this matter. People will seek to frustrate their removal at all costs. That is why, regrettably, there will always be a need for some level of immigration detention for when individuals fail to comply with requirements to leave the UK, seek to frustrate their removal or seek at times to use time limits as a means to string things out, because they know that they may gain advantage. Having said all of that, we are clear that detention should be used sparingly and only as a last resort.
We take our duty of care to those who are in detention seriously, for example, through healthcare and other provision. I recognise the reports on the issue of vulnerability to which I will come on, but there are many people working in immigration removal centres day in, day out, doing a tough and challenging job. In commenting on a number of the points made today, I put on the record my appreciation for those who are doing that tough job that supports our immigration centres and seeks to ensure that detainees are treated in a just, fair, appropriate and dignified way.
I underline that alternatives to detention should be used where possible, and I recognise that more can be done. The Bill and its new powers are part of the wider work to ensure that the Home Office has the right measures to manage individuals who are not detained and to ensure that they leave the UK when they no longer have any rights to be here. I continue to give great thought to ensuring that we provide an effective system that delivers value for money and seeks the departure or removal of increasing numbers of people who have no right to be here. There is the balance between enforced removal and encouraged or facilitated departure and we have already debated that broadly in respect of family groups.
New clause 1 would introduce a statutory prohibition on the detention of pregnant women and victims of torture, trafficking and sexual abuse. I note the generous way in which the hon. Member for Sheffield Central sought to recognise that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) who, on Second Reading, tabled an amendment on this issue. Along with many other Members of the House, he is tireless in his work on issues of immigration and detention and takes such matters seriously. I pay tribute to the former Member, Sarah Teather, who chaired the all-party group on refugees. While we did not always see eye to eye, I never doubted her focus and determination to ensure that the issues were considered by the House. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was part of that all-party group and continues that work.
I can tell the Committee that we take such issues extraordinarily seriously and they weigh heavily on Ministers when we seek to deprive people of their liberty. Therefore, in our approach we seek to ensure that detention is part of a removals process, which at times has to take into account issues of public protection as well. The issues of safeguarding and vulnerability are very much in our minds and that is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary commissioned Stephen Shaw, the former prisons and probation ombudsman, to undertake an in-depth review of how the Home Office treats vulnerable people who are detained. As I indicated, that is why I suspended the detained fast track, because I could not be satisfied that safeguards were operating effectively.
The Committee will be aware that we have received Mr Shaw’s report and are considering our response to that important issue. We are actively considering the report’s recommendations and we will come back to the House in due course to report on that.
I think that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was seeking a timeframe from me. We are not seeking to delay; we are considering those issues carefully, but I want to get it right and come back to the House with an appropriate response that recognises the thorough work that Mr Shaw has undertaken.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for his comments on that specific issue. Will he come back to the House with a response to that review before the Bill has completed its journey through both Houses?
James Brokenshire
I can certainly tell the hon. Gentleman that I wish to ensure that we publish the report and the Government’s response before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. Equally, I want to ensure that we come back when we can. It is important that we reflect properly on the report and the recommendations, which we are actively doing.
During our debate on bail, I made it clear that vulnerable people should not normally be detained under immigration powers. I reiterate that point now. This approach is our published policy. We have a clear list of individuals who are not normally suitable for detention unless there are exceptional circumstances in play. The list includes pregnant women, the elderly, and those who have been identified by the competent authority under the national referral mechanism as victims of trafficking and torture. It is unlawful to act in a way that is contrary to our published policy.
The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras raised the issue of mental health and release from detention. He asked whether there would ever be circumstances where a high-risk individual may need to be released from immigration detention because of their poor mental health. I can confirm that there will be some cases involving mental health issues where an individual should not be detained under immigration powers, no matter how high the risk and no matter how imminent the removal. In those cases, the right course of action will normally be to transfer to the appropriate authorities.
The new clause lacks definitions of the relevant exclusions and, as such, would be open to broad interpretation, so it contains weaknesses. Such an approach could leave the Home Office open to damages. For example, if a woman was pregnant at the point of detention but not aware of the fact or chose not to disclose her pregnancy, the Home Office could be sued for damages after the fact. It is an unfortunate reality that, in some cases, individuals will not comply with the requirement to leave the UK and their removal must be enforced, which often requires a short period of detention.
Anne McLaughlin
I appreciate what the Minister is saying but could he not just write safeguards into the legislation?
James Brokenshire
I am making a technical point on the drafting of the new clause. There are issues of principle, but we believe that even if the principle were accepted, there are technical deficiencies in the drafting that Members might wish to reflect on, given that no amendments have been tabled.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate the open and generous way in which the Minister has approached the matter. I would like to build on what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said. If the Committee supported the intention of the new clause, we would be very keen to work with the Minister to try to get the wording in such a state that the Home Office felt comfortable in taking it forward.
James Brokenshire
I do not support the new clause. I am certain that the intention behind it is not to undermine immigration control or to reward those who make spurious claims about being a victim of hideous events to avoid enforced removal when they refuse to leave the UK voluntarily. Sadly, those cases exist, which is why this is difficult territory and regrettably, that may be the practical effect of the new clause. However, I recognise that the issue of vulnerable people in detention is a major concern to MPs and to many people outside the House. I therefore ask that the Government are given time fully to consider Stephen Shaw’s review before the House legislates on a very complex issue.
New clause 3 would introduce a statutory time limit on detention unless the individual was listed in the regulations as being exempt from the time limit. There is a common misconception that detention under immigration powers is indefinite. I want to make it clear to the Committee that that is not the case. Although there is no fixed statutory time limit on the duration of detention under immigration powers, it is not the case that there is no time limit. It is limited by statutory measures, the European convention on human rights, the common law, including principles set out in domestic case law, and the legal obligations arising from the Home Office’s published policy, which states:
“Detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary.”
Keir Starmer
On the question of “indefinite”, surely the detention is indefinite in the sense that there is no definite limit to it. The detention might not be unending, but it is indefinite in the way that we all understand “indefinite”.
James Brokenshire
Indefinite detention implies detention that cannot be brought to an end. For reasons of bail and the relevant principles in common law, the detention has to be linked to the ability to remove.
If we look at the cohort likely to be in detention for longer, the vast majority are foreign national offenders. That is the reality we are dealing with. There might be challenges that we are working through on identification, so that they may get the relevant travel documentation, or they might take other measures to prevent their removal. There are a number of challenging policy issues in this area, but I underline the policy principles that exist in respect of why detention is there and why it is linked to removal. Equally, I underline the relevant safeguards.
Hon. Members might say that non-compliant cases could be added to the regulation that sets out cases where the 28-day limit does not apply, but the use of the detention power is increasingly focused on non-compliant individuals to ensure their removal. In reality, even if the clause was founded in that way, there would be little impact if non-compliant cases were added to the list.
I recognise what hon. Members have said about ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. I am proud that the Government have introduced measures to ensure that the routine detention of children under immigration powers is used only in very, very limited circumstances. Equally, we do not detain individuals for age-assessment purposes. In cases in which an individual is held in an immigration removal centre and doubts arise as to whether they are an adult, we aim to release them immediately into local authority care, pending an age assessment.
I recognise that we are discussing a controversial policy area, but I underline the fact that we are dealing with the details. There are a range of public policy views and objectives that need to be advanced, but ultimately there are clear safeguards in the system. We will continue to reflect carefully on the issues of vulnerability, but I hope that, given those assurances, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central is minded to withdraw the new clause.
The Chair
I remind the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that he may withdraw new clause 1, or press both new clauses to a vote—that is a matter for him—but he will be winding up the debate on new clauses 1 and 3.
Paul Blomfield
I am mindful there might be a vote in the Chamber in a few minutes, so I will try to be brief. I accept the Minister’s point that this is a complex and difficult area of policy, but evidence from other countries demonstrates that statutory limits on administrative intervention can and do work effectively. There is a case to be made for the limit suggested in new clause 3 and the specific exclusions suggested in new clause 1.
I underline the breadth of support across the House on this issue. That was evident in the inquiry and in our debate on 10 September, when 25 Members from all parties represented on this Committee—and more besides—spoke. The House, as a result of that debate, endorsed the recommendations.
On the Minister’s point about foreign national offenders and the wider caveats in new clause 3, not all foreign national offenders are necessarily a risk to public safety, and issues around that need to be addressed. I accept his point that there may be a lack of precision in how the new clause is drafted. For that reason, I agree not to press new clauses 1 and 3 on the understanding that he will, as he indicated, actively come back to us with the results of his consideration of the Shaw review. We will then have an opportunity to come back to the issue while the Bill proceeds in a way that achieves the objectives of the new clause, but perhaps in a better crafted way. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Before we adjourn, I add that I may not be with you again if business finishes on Tuesday morning next week. I thank the Clerks, Members on both sides of the Committee, including those on the Front and Back Benches, and everyone for their co-operation during proceedings.
James Brokenshire
On a point of order, Mr Owen. As this may be our last opportunity as a Committee to recognise your contribution to the Bill in ensuring that our consideration is in order and in adding to the good-natured spirit of our proceedings, may I, on behalf of the Committee, thank you for your chairmanship? We have very much appreciated your guidance and assistance, which has added to our consideration of the Bill.
Keir Starmer
On a point of order, Mr Owen. I endorse that point of order. Not only for the group the Minister spoke of but for those of us who have gone round this track for the first time, your help and assistance and that of the Clerks has been invaluable to each and all of us.
Gavin Newlands
Further to that point of order, Mr Owen. May I point out that I was 6 feet behind Anne when the doors were locked for the earlier vote?
The Chair
The point has been made.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Charlie Elphicke.)
Housing and Planning Bill (First sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I welcome you all to the first Committee sitting of the Housing and Planning Bill. I hope to keep our discussions pleasant and civilised. There are a couple of little rules. We are not allowed to have coffees, or to drink or eat anything else, and if anyone’s mobile phone goes off they will earn my strict displeasure, or a wiggle of my eyebrow at the very least.
Before we begin the more interesting part of the sitting, I ask Members who have interests to declare now to do so.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I am organising a seminar on 20 November called “How should Norfolk grow?” It has eight commercial sponsors: Barclays bank, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership, the local train franchise, Anglian Water, Saffron Housing, Norwich International airport, Swallowtail Print and the Maids Head hotel.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May I also draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
May I likewise draw the Committee’s attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Likewise, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Chairman, I would like the Committee to note that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Southwark and that I employ a councillor in my parliamentary team.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I also declare that I am a member of my local authority.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
May I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
The Chair
All duly noted. Thank you very much indeed.
Before we move to the discussion, I need to deal with a few formalities. I first call the Minister to move the programme motion.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 10 November) meet— (a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 November;
(b) at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 November;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 November;
(f) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 December;
(g) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 3 December;
(h) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 December;
(i) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 December;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
Date | Time | Witness |
|---|---|---|
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 10.00 am | Greater London Authority |
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 10.45 am | Local Government Association; London Councils |
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 11.25 am | National Housing Federation; PlaceShapers |
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 2.45 pm | British Property Federation; Federation of Master Builders; Home Builders Federation |
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 3.15 pm | Shelter; Crisis |
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 4.15 pm | Peaks and Plains Housing Trust; Hastoe Group; Riverside; L&Q |
Tuesday 10 November | Until no later than 5.00 pm | National Landlords Association; Residential Landlords Association; Association of Residential Letting Agents |
Tuesday 17 November | Until no later than 10.15 am | Chartered Institute of Housing; Planning Officers Society; Royal Town Planning Institute; Town and Country Planning Association |
Tuesday 17 November | Until no later than 10.45 am | Campaign to Protect Rural England |
Tuesday 17 November | Until no later than 11.25 am | Department for Communities and Local Government |
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 17; Schedule 1; Clauses 18 and 19; Schedule 2; Clause 20; Schedule 3; Clauses 21 to 86; Schedule 4; Clauses 87 to 90; Schedule 5; Clauses 91 to 102; Schedule 6; Clauses 103 to 121; Schedule 7; Clauses 122 to 127; Schedule 8; Clauses 128 to 134; Schedules 9 and 10; Clauses 135 to 139; Schedule 11; Clauses 140 to 145; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 10 December.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The Chair
That means that the deadline for tabling amendments to be considered in the first two line-by-line Committee sittings is by the rise of the House on Monday 16 November.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Brandon Lewis.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Brandon Lewis.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room if anyone wishes to pick them up.
Examination of Witness
Richard Blakeway gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move to the interesting part of the morning, which is oral evidence from the Greater London Authority. I particularly welcome Richard Blakeway. Thank you for taking the time to come and speak to us.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind you all that questions must be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. If they are outside that scope, I will call you to order. We must stick to the timings in the programme, which means, I am afraid, that we sadly have only until 10 o’clock. For the sake of the record, would you kindly start by introducing yourself?
Richard Blakeway: Of course. My name is Richard Blakeway. I am the Deputy Mayor, responsible for housing, land and property at the Greater London Authority.
The Chair
Members now need simply to catch my eye and then to ask Mr Blakeway appropriate questions.
Chris Philp
Q 1 Mr Blakeway, could you start by briefly outlining the powers you currently exercise on the London Land Commission and explaining to the Committee whether there are any further powers you might find useful?
Richard Blakeway: As you know, the Bill has great scope. The Mayor is very supportive of the Bill and of measures to increase house building. Among the features of the Bill that we think are very important are some of the measures regarding land. We have sought to establish with the Government a London Land Commission, which seeks to identify and release surplus public sector-owned land. That builds on the work that the Greater London Authority has done as a landowner. We now have something like 99% of our assets under development and delivering about 45,000 homes. We would like to see an amendment to the Bill for a duty to co-operate with the Mayor and the land commission. In addition, we would like an obligation on the part of public bodies to compile a register of assets and maintain it, building on the London-wide register of assets.
Finally, we would like to see the opportunity for the Mayor to acquire sites once they become identified as surplus—a kind of first refusal—where they have some strategic importance. They may sit with one of our initiatives, such as a housing zone, or within an opportunity area. In that way, we would be able to manage a proper disposal and ensure that homes are built at pace.
Chris Philp
Q 2 Do you need any further powers to make sure that other public bodies beyond the GLA—such as Transport for London, the NHS, Network Rail or even the Ministry of Defence—will actually bring forward the sites for disposal? Rather than you simply recommending it, do you need any further powers to—perhaps compel is the wrong word—take over the disposal process?
Richard Blakeway: I think we certainly need the transparency that I talked about and therefore the obligation to compile a register of interests and to co-operate. Having first refusal—the idea that we have the right to acquire an asset before someone else—would obviously mean that we would be paying for that asset at the appropriate value, but we could then lead a coherent procurement. I think it is a really important change.
Chris Philp
Q 3 Finally, are the CPO powers in the Bill adequate for the purposes of the Mayor of London and the GLA for things to go further?
Richard Blakeway: We welcome the Government’s focus on CPO, but we would like them to go further. We would like to see two things. The first is a general CPO power for the GLA around regeneration. At the moment, our CPO powers are separated, depending on which part of the GLA group you look at. The GLA itself has CPO for housing; Transport for London has CPO for transport. We would like that to be interchangeable.
Secondly, we would like to see the ability for us to devolve our CPO powers to members of the GLA family. For example, where we have established mayoral development corporations—something which was enabled through the Localism Act—we would like to see the ability for us to devolve those CPO powers. For example, the Old Oak Common mayoral development corporation could exercise CPO.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Q 4 What do you think will be the impact of the starter homes clause on the provision of affordable housing in London?
Richard Blakeway: The GLA welcomes the introduction of starter homes and the Government’s focus on promoting home ownership. A number of things relating to starter homes will be in the regulations. For us to undertake a full assessment of the impact, we will have to see the regulations first. The first important point to make is that starter homes are not a substitute for all affordable housing. They are another affordable housing product. While there will be a quota that has to be delivered on site, we would still expect the London plan policy, which seeks to maximise affordable housing and therefore other affordable housing products, to apply once the quota has been sought.
The second important point is that we already have quite a well-established intermediate market in the capital. In particular, we have a significant number of shared ownership properties coming forward. Since this Mayor was elected, we have helped 52,000 Londoners purchase through intermediate products, predominately shared ownership, and we have a target to help a quarter of a million Londoners over the next decade. It is really important that starter homes complement existing products such as that, rather than substitute for them. The two have to work alongside each other, not least because they will probably target people with different incomes.
Helen Hayes
Q 5 As you know, the cap price for starter homes in London is £450,000. Could you say a little about for whom you think a starter home at £450,000 in London will be affordable? Are you content that the cap is appropriate?
Richard Blakeway: Clearly, starter homes will have to be valued in the normal way. There should not be any suggestion that this will inflate prices in any sense. We would expect a range of homes to be delivered at a range of prices. We strongly support the comments that the Prime Minister made when he said that he hoped that in London he would see a number of starter homes come forward in the £150,000 to £200,000 price bracket. It is also important to recognise what happens in the open market at the moment. Typically, according to Council of Mortgage Lenders data, we are seeing first-time buyers purchase at about the £280,000 or £290,000 price mark. That is typically what happens in the open market at the moment. From our perspective, it is very important that a range of starter homes are delivered at different prices. It is also important that there is still space for the equivalent number of other intermediate products—particularly shared ownership—to be delivered on schemes.
Helen Hayes
Q 6 Finally, are you concerned that starter home development will be free from the community infrastructure levy and section 106 contributions?
Richard Blakeway: As we understand it, so-called exemption sites are free from the community infrastructure levy. Our expectation, however—our strategic land assessment has done a tremendous amount of work to identify brownfield opportunities—is that there are probably not many exemption sites in London where that would apply. Where it applies otherwise—clearly, starter homes should apply to all significant sites—affordable housing is already exempt from CIL, and it is just another affordable housing product.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q 7 May I press you on the impact of the starter homes clauses on more innovative models of affordable and intermediate housing? I am thinking, for example, of Pocket housing, which the Mayor has been very supportive of, and where eligibility is secured in perpetuity through a section 106 agreement. Do you think those clauses will have an impact on those types of models and their ability to expand across the capital?
Richard Blakeway: I emphasise the point again that starter homes are not a substitute for affordable housing and are not intended to be a substitute for all intermediate products. We would like to see both working alongside each other, and we would like to see products such as Pocket. The GLA is delivering a long-term investment partnership. I am sure Pocket would say that many of the people it helps to house are within the general expectation for starter homes—they are below the age of 40, for example, and within the price bracket to which the house-price cap applies. It is very important that starter homes work in London. They are a really important addition to help people achieve their aspiration to own a home, but they have to work alongside other intermediate products.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 8 As the Bill stands, have you been assured that they are an addition and will not simply squeeze out other affordable housing in the capital?
Richard Blakeway: A number of the key points will be articulated in the regulations. What is on the face of the Bill at the moment means that starter homes can certainly work alongside other intermediate products in the capital. The key bit will be what is in the regulations. One of the key issues is the quota of starter homes that will be required, which will be articulated in the regulations. There has been speculation that it will be 20%, but we are waiting to see the regulations. It is important that they work alongside each other. Just to pick up on your point, we have a number of intermediate products where the investment is locked in in perpetuity, and we would like to see that continue.
Mr Bacon
Q 9 Mr Blakeway, what possibilities are there for the provision of serviced plots within the GLA area for people who wish to build their own home, either individually or in what the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 calls “associations of individuals”, who come together to build their own houses?
Richard Blakeway: We think there is a real role for both custom build and self-build. On the identification of plots, we are working closely with local authorities to compile a list of potential sites. In addition, the GLA is acting as one of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s vanguards and establishing a register of people with an interest. We are seeing a phenomenal rate of interest in London: more than 600 people have signed the register in the past three months. People often look at London and say that custom build and self-build cannot work in the capital, but we do not believe that is the case. We think it has a role to play in the capital—particularly in outer London. We also think that custom build, in particular, has a role to play among conventional house builders and housing associations. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot reserve a proportion of plots for custom build on a large regeneration scheme or development site.
Mr Bacon
Q 11 In relation to large cities, Berlin has more than 3,000 dwellings that have been developed very recently using self-build and custom house building. Are you saying that in large urban areas such as London it is not a problem to do it in the way that some people are suggesting?
Richard Blakeway: It is more challenging because we have a very heated land market and development opportunities tend to be more complex, but it should not be dismissed. We think it has a particular role to play, for example in outer London where the kind of density that might be built through custom build and self-build is appropriate to the local vernacular.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q 12 Are you certain that the sale of high-value council housing will yield enough resource to fund the right-to-buy scheme? Do you think it will guarantee that enough houses are built?
Richard Blakeway: Certainly within London, our analysis—and we have had some support from Savills on this—suggests that there are sufficient capital returns and receipts from the sale of high-value council houses in the capital to cover the cost of discounts in the capital and the cost of reprovision, as well as other things such as debt financing and so on. The straightforward answer is yes, within London.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 13 The Bill does not require social housing to be built in the same place that houses were sold off through the right-to-buy scheme, so how can we guarantee that enough of those houses will be built in London?
Richard Blakeway: The Government have very clearly set out their ambition that there is at least a one for one replacement of those homes, so you will get one extra home each time. That is a very clear statement by Government and is something that our modelling shows can be achieved within London. In addition, we would like to see it go further. We would like to see a two for one replacement in London, so that you get even more affordable house building as a result. I note the point that you make about where those homes are built and whether they can be built within borough. Given that the reprovision of council homes should, in the first instance, be undertaken by the local authority in our view, we would expect that it would look to achieve that within borough, but I think realistically, constraints around both finance and land will mean that not all homes are reprovided within the existing borough. The important thing from our perspective, given that we have one housing market within London, is that they are reprovided within the capital.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 14 Nevertheless there is not a requirement to do that. Would it be more helpful if there was a requirement that the houses are replaced in the same area that they are sold from?
Richard Blakeway: There are a number of statements relating to reprovision which are very clear about that being done within the local area. We have an established role for the Greater London Authority as well as the London Government more widely around housing provision. The Localism Act gave the Mayor of London the same functions as the Homes and Communities Agency. We would expect the reprovision to be done within the capital. Government have been very clear that that is their intention and their aspiration. The issue is whether we are doing one for one replacement or whether we are seeking to exceed that, and we would like to see two for one replacement.
Seema Kennedy
Q 15 In relation to clauses 22 to 31 on rogue landlords, do you think the provisions in the Bill will raise the standard of property available in the rental sector in London?
Richard Blakeway: We very warmly welcome Government’s measures on tackling rogue—often criminal—landlords, not just the measures in the Bill but more widely. We very strongly welcome that. One of the key changes which we would like to see is for us to have access to the data which will be collected around bad landlords. One of those clauses pertains to that. We would like the GLA to have access to that because it would enable us to build on existing programmes which are seeking to improve the quality of the rented sector in the capital, not least the London rental standard. We have something like 140,000 private rented properties already managed under that standard and the higher expectations which that demands. So we think it will make a significant impact, we welcome the changes, but we would like access to the bad landlord database.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 16 Mr Blakeway, one of the biggest challenges in providing more housing is delays in the planning system. There are a number of measures in the Bill, such as insisting on local plans by 2017, simplifying overall plans and more timely decisions in planning in principle. How do you think these will work out in terms of expediting the planning system?
Richard Blakeway: We welcome all the measures that are being introduced by the Government to try to accelerate or expedite the planning processes. As you know, since the GLA’s inception, we have had a long-established strategic planning role and in particular we are keen to build upon clause 101, which gives the Mayor greater authority to exercise those strategic planning powers. In addition, we would like to be able to play a role around permission in principle and issuing development orders, as well as the register of brownfield sites and our ability to co-ordinate that. As a basic principle, we would like to see the Mayor of London exercise the kind of functions that the Secretary of State envisages exercising in the rest of the country.
Mr Jackson
Q 17 Obviously there is a predisposition in the Bill towards support for residential accommodation and housing in London and across the country. What impact do you think that might have, specifically in London, on commercial and business premises?
Richard Blakeway: I think that some of the issues in relation to the conversion of office to residential are actually outside the Bill. None the less, we very much welcome the Government’s agreement that there will be an exemption until May 2019 for some of the existing areas that we have sought exemptions for, such as the CAZ—the central activities zone—the Royal Docks enterprise zone, Tech City, and the northern part of the Isle of Dogs. We really welcome the Government’s move on that. Clearly, the article 4 measure allows those areas to formulate an application to extend the exemption beyond 2019 and there is obviously a window to do that.
Brandon Lewis
Q 18 May I take you back to the conversation a few minutes ago about starter homes? Are you able to give us an idea, even if it is a ballpark figure, of the average price paid by a first-time buyer for a home in London?
Richard Blakeway: A ballpark price would be about £290,000. I think that is based on CML data.
Brandon Lewis
Q 19 So that is somewhere below the cap for starter homes?
Richard Blakeway: Correct.
Brandon Lewis
Q 20 So at what sort of level would you like or do you expect starter homes to be provided for in London?
Richard Blakeway: A similar level. That is why I do not see the cap as an issue. It is striking, for example, that the purchase price with shared ownership is broadly the same price as first-time buyers pay on the open market; again, it is about £290,000. It is logical, therefore, to expect starter homes to be in a similar price bracket.
Brandon Lewis
Q 21 From the work you have done looking at this and the opportunities for London in the starter homes brand, do you see that as an opportunity to get an overall increase in the housing supply in London—to push that supply up?
Richard Blakeway: Yes. We see a real role for starter homes within the capital. As I have set out and as you know from our conversations, we expect that to happen alongside other products, such as shared ownership, which can play a different but similar role to promote low cost of ownership in London. We think there is a real opportunity to increase not just the volume, but the proportion of low cost of ownership opportunities in London with a suite of products, including starter homes and shared ownership. What we would like to see is a role for the Mayor of London to co-ordinate that being reflected in the Bill—a change to the Bill to enable that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 22 How can you be so confident? Have you carried out work on this to know that other affordable housing products will also be delivered alongside starter homes?
Richard Blakeway: I think I have expressed some caution to the extent of saying that some of the issues in relation to starter homes will be set out in the regulations, and that to undertake a full assessment we need to see the regulations. One critical thing is what percentage of starter homes are required on each site—that is a critical issue that will be set out in the regulations. What we have said very clearly, however, is that the quota of starter homes will be applied, but then we would expect that the London plan policy, which seeks to maximise affordable housing, will also be applied afterwards. So the two tests are still applied to schemes.
Brandon Lewis
Q 23 Just to finish off my query on starter homes, bearing in mind your comments a few minutes ago about planning permission in principle on brownfield land and the London Land Commission—I should declare that I am joint chair—do you see a role for the work that the London Land Commission is doing in identifying land, working with that brownfield register and planning in principle in being able to deliver homes such as starter homes?
Richard Blakeway: Yes, and that is why I think some of the changes that we are suggesting to strengthen the strategic role that already exists for the Mayor of London are important so that we can co-ordinate each of those elements. As you say, each of them are connected and interrelated. So the changes to allow us to strengthen the land commission and have that duty of co-operation, the changes so that we can issue development orders in relation to planning in principle—PIPs—and the changes to allow us to co-ordinate and ensure that boroughs are in conformity with the brownfield register are all really important, and it is important that the GLA and the Mayor play a strong role.
Brandon Lewis
Q 24 Okay, I have two other areas that I want to touch on. I know my colleague wants to jump in as well. The current Mayor and your office have had some fairly ambitious targets around housing provision for London and have achieved some really good numbers. I know you have big ambitions going forward—on Second Reading we heard my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) outline some of his ambitions, which involved having more extra homes built in London for every home sold, which is the point you were making. With the brownfield registers, planning permission in principle, the compulsory purchase order changes, the section 106 changes and so on that are outlined in the Housing Bill, and the work that the London Land Commission is doing, what do you think that means for affordable housing provision in London and for the work of your office?
Richard Blakeway: I think it strengthens our ability to drive house building within the capital, and it helps us to achieve our target of seeing 49,000 homes completed each year—a level that has not been seen since the 1930s. Clearly, it gives a stronger role to the Mayor to build upon his existing strategic planning powers. It also enables new roles in relation to co-ordinating affordable products in the capital, particularly around low cost of ownership, and enabling surplus land to come forward and identifying brownfield opportunities. So I think the combination of those measures will help us to achieve our goal to double house building.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Q 25 Good morning, Mr Blakeway. Much of the Bill is rightly predicated on supply, but using the existing stock we have to support people into housing is also extremely important. How do you think the Bill will support landlords in recovering properties that have been abandoned?
Richard Blakeway: It is clearly useful that the Bill seeks to enable landlords to do that. We need to undertake a full analysis of how it would work in the capital, but we think it is a useful measure that has been introduced.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Given what is in the Bill about starter homes, do you think the Mayor’s housing zone bids that have already been successful will need to be revisited? Secondly, where housing associations are undertaking the build—their tenants now have the right to buy—because of the quality that needs to be in a housing zone bid, some of those properties will cost more to build than the market value. Is it your understanding that they will be recompensed the full cost or just the difference between market value and the sale price?
Richard Blakeway: Taking your first point about the relationship between starter homes and housing zones, once starter homes are introduced formally they will be incorporated within housing zones—
Teresa Pearce
Q 26 Will they be revisited?
Richard Blakeway: Well, there is no reason why that would undermine the ability of the housing zones to deliver. It is also important to set out that a number of housing zones already have schemes that have planning permission and will therefore just continue. On your second point in relation to the value of the stock and replacement value, that needs to be looked at, but there should not be that many instances in London where that is the case.
The Chair
Mr Blakeway, may I thank you very much on behalf of the Committee for coming to give evidence? It is very useful indeed. We will now move on to the next witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Mayor Sir Steve Bullock, Councillor Martin Tett, Councillor Phil Glanville and Councillor Philippa Roe gave evidence.
The Chair
First of all, welcome to all our witnesses. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to the Committee. For the record, please would witnesses introduce themselves to us?
Sir Steve Bullock: I am the Mayor of Lewisham, and I am the executive lead for London Councils on housing.
Martin Tett: I am leader of Buckinghamshire County Council, but I am here in the capacity of a representative of the Local Government Association, where I am vice-chair of the housing board.
Philippa Roe: I am the leader of Westminster City Council.
Phil Glanville: I am a cabinet member for housing in Hackney.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 27 We have just heard evidence from the Deputy Mayor with responsibility for housing. He was fairly confident that, in addition to starter homes being delivered, other forms of affordable housing would be guaranteed. Perhaps we could have your views on this. Do you agree with him?
Philippa Roe: I do agree with him, but it is about giving us the flexibilities to be able to deliver those homes. I certainly believe that within London we can provide significantly more housing than has been provided to date. The sites are there. From the local authority perspective, our hands are somewhat tied in what we can deliver; there are a number of reasons for that. First, there is the funding side of it and how we can use the money. We have the housing revenue account, but the amount we can borrow against it is capped at a relatively low level. We could lift that cap quite sensibly and still borrow prudentially, and use that money to build. We are limited on where we can spend that HRA headroom, as well as section 106 or community infrastructure levy monies. I will come on to talk about the issues we face in Westminster which are driving this, but we in Westminster would like to be able to team up with other boroughs outside Westminster but within London to deliver our housing need. Also, I think we ought to be able to put into that pot money from high-value council house sales and from right to buy. It should be voluntary.
There are several reasons why we in Westminster have a real issue with housing, although they are true of central London and across the parties. It stems from the fact that there is enormous demand—people want to come and live in central London—and the way that the regulations work on taking on a duty to house means that your local connection does not have to be that deep. About 40%—39%, to be precise—of the people we take on a duty to house each year have less than a year’s connection to Westminster, and many of them have no connection at all because they have come from abroad and we are the first authority they register with. They do not necessarily have a particular need to live in Westminster, because they are probably not working in central London. There is no particular need for them to live in Westminster. What they need is good-quality housing.
Combine that with Westminster’s existing density of all its building, not just housing, and the high value of those units, and we are put in a position where it is just about impossible to house that huge demand within the boundaries of Westminster. We therefore need to be quite selective to support people with a genuine long-term connection to Westminster; we also prioritise people with work needs or who perhaps need to stay in Westminster because they have connections with health support services or whatever here.
I think that I am speaking on behalf of London Councils when I say that we believe that there is a mechanism which would free up local authorities to team up together. Perhaps several central London boroughs with money could team up with one or two outer London boroughs with land, in order to produce not just housing but proper regeneration. One of the issues we face in this debate is that we talk about housing in a silo. Actually you cannot do that if you are to create a proper community. You have to talk about proper regeneration of an area.
If we could pool those funds—perhaps even get some GLA money as well and work with a private sector developer—we could create mixed communities with the market housing, intermediate housing and social housing that we need, alongside a GP surgery, a school and hopefully, although it would be much more expensive, transport infrastructure that we could work with the GLA to put in place. That way we would be creating communities, not just homes. In return for that, it is important that the funding boroughs have some nomination rights, but it would all be voluntary and by negotiation with the receiving boroughs. Everybody would be happy; it would not be foisted upon a borough.
Martin Tett: Just to add to that, the LGA very much recognises the Government’s aspiration to build a substantial number of new houses every year. Probably, 230,000 houses is the minimum we need to build in order to accommodate the rapidly growing population. We are very keen to work with the Government in order to make that happen; we think that local councils can be part of the solution to this problem, rather than part of the problem itself. We are very keen to have those negotiations with the Government.
On increasing the supply of affordable housing, clearly there is a change in the definition of affordable housing, which is obviously material. The other concern we have is about infrastructure. I completely agree with Philippa’s point that it is not just about putting up houses. It is about securing the infrastructure alongside them that makes houses into communities. We obviously need to make sure that the exemption from section 106 for starter homes, for example, does not result in additional congestion, additional pressure on school places, addition pressure on doctors’ surgeries—all the sorts of things that lead local communities to resist house building in their area.
My last point is that there is still some detail to be worked through as to how the financial process will work for the funding of some of the processes, particularly for the discounts involved. We need to make sure that houses sold, for example, from the registered social landlord sector are replaced on a one-for-one basis in the same area. Obviously, a replacement in a different part of the country by the same RSL will not meet the housing need in the area where the original house was.
Sir Steve Bullock: I will not repeat what Philippa has said—
The Chair
You do not all have to answer every question.
Sir Steve Bullock: —but she is right about the need for the boroughs to work together. That is something that we are very keen to do. To get to the heart of your point, I have to say that I am less confident than the Deputy Mayor about the impact of starter homes. We welcome them as another way of getting people on to the housing ladder in London, but we have two anxieties. One is that they might drive out other forms of affordable home ownership, rather than being additional. Secondly, they are time limited, by definition. One thing that I suspect we may come back to is the mix of units that we need to deliver in order to meet the housing needs that we have as individual boroughs.
Phil Glanville: I am a bit more pessimistic than some of my colleagues. I think we are going to squeeze out social housing and truly affordable housing in the planning system. We are already seeing a lot of challenges across London in terms of viability in planning schemes. Where we would have seen developments come forward with 30% or 40% affordable housing, it is falling to 10% or 20%. It is not an alternative to shared ownership as a truly affordable, low-cost housing option. Of people in Hackney that are registered on the Share to Buy website, nearly 3,000 of those that have registered for an affordable housing purchase product earn less than £40,000. If we are talking about an accessible product, a product that has a cap of £450,000 in inner London is simply not affordable. That would bring the cost down to around £420,000. That is not accessible for those who aspire to home ownership but are earning less than £40,000. If we want to have a creative, vibrant inner London, where people of different communities can afford to live and buy—we aspire to let people buy—then we need a range of products. Starter homes are not a replacement for shared ownership.
Seema Kennedy
Q 28 Councillor Tett, what is the LGA’s view on the Bill’s provisions on brownfield sites? Will the power for local authorities to compile registers of brownfield land help to protect the green belt, particularly in places such as Buckinghamshire? I know that your view is of the whole LGA.
Martin Tett: Yes, I have to be very clear that I am representing all of the LGA here, not my particular area. We are very supportive of the idea of building on brownfield first, rather than going into open countryside or particularly into the green belt; we support the Government’s policy on that. The issue we have is the actual process for identifying brownfield sites. We need to be very clear about what they are and how they are defined, as well as the additional burden placed upon local authorities to compile and maintain those registers in, frankly, very financially stretched times, when, particularly in planning departments, it is quite difficult to attract and retain experienced staff. We need to ensure that, if this becomes an additional burden for local authorities, it is fully funded by the Government. As a concept it is a very good idea; we just have concerns about the financial implications and the practicality of it.
Seema Kennedy
Q 29 So as a concept you think it is a good idea. Do you also think that it helps communities to have ownership of these things, because there will be something very visible for them to see and feed into?
Martin Tett: I think you have asked a slightly different question. Brownfield sites—previously developed sites—are normally more acceptable to local communities. In terms of the development hierarchy, it is nearly always the area that local communities would support first, rather than going into greenfield or green belt sites.
As for local communities, that is a different issue to do with the infrastructure surrounding them and that is where people look. I go back to my previous observation about ensuring, for example, that any development does not lead to undue pressure in terms of road congestion, pressure at junctions, doctors’ surgeries and so on. That is a separate issue that goes back to section 106 and CIL obligations, which most local authorities look to housing developers to provide.
Helen Hayes
Q 30 From your understanding from your respective boroughs and work undertaken across the LGA, do you believe the sale of higher-value council homes can cover the costs of both the right-to-buy scheme and the levels of replacement of both the housing association homes lost to the rental sector and the loss of those council homes? Is that a realistic scenario?
Sir Steve Bullock: The difficulty in giving you a definitive answer to that is that it depends on how you implement the scheme. The definition of high value will be crucial to this. The initial work done on this, certainly from the London perspective, does indicate that there would be an outflow of funds from London to the rest of the country, which we are deeply concerned about. We are clear that we would need to know more before we could give you a hard and fast answer on this.
Philippa Roe: I completely agree with what Steve has said, and I would certainly endorse what Rick Blakeway said about trying to keep as much money as possible within London, where the greatest housing crisis is, so it seems sensible to keep the money there.
One thing that has been mooted is that, instead of the money being put in a pot for literally every high-value council house sold, the boroughs should be given a fund—a sum of money that they have to find, however—which is then supposed to be driven by the council house sales. One concern we have in Westminster about that is that obviously we have some very high-value properties, but our churn rate is very low. Up until very recently we gave tenancies for life and they could even be inherited. A sub-market-value rental property in central London is an extremely valuable asset. People do not give them up easily, so our churn rate is incredibly low. I would call for recognition of that if any targets are set, particularly for central London boroughs. I do not think ours is the only one to face that issue.
Martin Tett: Taking a wider perspective than just London, one of the ambiguities I mentioned earlier, as my colleagues have said, is about the definition of high value. How would you define that in different parts of the country? High value in London may be different from high value in Buckinghamshire, which may be different from high value in Doncaster or Teesside. There is ambiguity at the moment on that. In addition, what is the definition of a vacant property? If you have a tenancy exchange, is that property vacant or an occupied property in transition?
So we need to work through some of those ambiguities and negotiate with the Government. The other issue we have is how the model actually works. How do you predict for a particular year how much money is required for the RSL discount, which means you know effectively how much you have to charge to local authorities as a levy? That in turn dictates how much they have to sell. We are not clear yet on the details of how that will operate. Again, we are happy to negotiate that with the Government.
Phil Glanville: We need to see some clear exemptions around the value of new properties that are being built. Councils such as Hackney and Islington, Camden and Southwark have ambitions to build new affordable housing on their own land in London in order to meet that housing need. If that is taken into account when they become void, building any new home in the centre of London is likely to see those homes included within any cap or formula. Although there could be flexibility on exempting them, if their value is still included in the formula, the effect is the same: you would have to sell more of your existing stock.
It is worth saying when we are talking about high-value properties in London that Hackney is still the 11th most deprived borough in the country and the wards on the City fringe are some of the most deprived in Hackney. On Rightmove today I saw properties there that are worth £450,000. That is for a two-bedroom flat in a block that was built in the 1930s and ’40s; it is not a street property in Kensington, Islington or Stoke Newington. That is the effect that the overheated London market is having on our council stock. These are still very humble family properties on council estates in London; that is not the definition of places where poorer people should not live, which is what I think was the genesis of the policy in the Policy Exchange report.
Helen Hayes
Q 31 Given some of the uncertainties that you have all outlined, do you think too much is being left to regulations when it should be in the Bill?
Phil Glanville: Yes.
Philippa Roe: I would say no, because the Bill is going through now, this is complex, and if we tried to rush it through too quickly now there might be unintended consequences. I would like to see proper time given for the regulations to be introduced, picking up on those unintended consequences.
Martin Tett: I agree with Councillor Roe about unintended consequences. If you try to shoehorn everything into the Bill, there is a danger of locking in things on which you might need flexibility later. The LGA is keen to sit down with the Government, understand some of the intentions behind the Bill and try to work through the best solutions that lead to the best outcomes for not just the Government’s policies but local councils and their housing responsibilities.
Sir Steve Bullock: Going forward, the Bill is interesting in the way it proposes to create that space. I suspect that that means that if we are going to be in an ongoing process of negotiation beyond the Bill becoming an Act, local and central Government need to step up their games to demonstrate how they will make that work and how we can have sufficient transparency to provide the reassurances that people will want.
Mr Jackson
I was rather remiss earlier for not declaring another interest that might not be in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of the LGA, so that is on the record. That brings me neatly to Councillor Tett.
Mr Jackson
Q 32 Yes, regrettably.
If the Bill becomes law, the Secretary of State will acquire powers in respect of local development plans. With your LGA hat on, Mr Tett, why do you think a significant number of local planning authorities have still not adopted local development plans? Is there a systemic issue that is preventing them from doing as other local authorities have done?
Martin Tett: I can give a generic answer to that, but we would have to get down to some specifics as well. There is a complex answer to what sounds like a very simple question. In some cases I suspect that, quite frankly, local authorities have not risen to the challenge sufficiently. In some areas, though, I think they have made their best efforts but, during the process, have fallen foul of various requirements. The one that is cited to me a lot is evidencing the duty to co-operate to the satisfaction of the planning inspector.
There is a lot of frustration in some councils because they have been found to be inadequate and effectively have to restart the whole process. A lot of councils say to me, “Why can’t we go back to where we were found to be inadequate, rather than having to start again?” Councils in my area have failed their local plan on two occasions and are now well into their third, whereas had they been able to short-circuit that, they would probably now be well into adopting a plan. There is a variety of reasons throughout the country and it is a long-drawn-out process. In some cases, councils have not risen to the challenge; in other cases, the process itself is convoluted, complex and difficult.
Mr Jackson
Q 33 Is that officer capacity or political leadership?
Martin Tett: It is both. There is a variety of answers to that. In some cases, if one is honest, there has probably been inadequate political leadership, but often local councils are really struggling with sufficient professional, experienced officer capacity. One thing we have all experienced across virtually every council in the country is that experienced, professional planning officers are very difficult to recruit and retain. They are being hoovered up—I use that expression quite often—by the private sector. As the building and civil engineering industries have recovered nationally, they have been able to pay substantially higher salaries than local councils. It is very difficult to recruit and retain the experience required for the successful implementation of a local plan.
Mr Jackson
Q 34 May I ask the London representatives about the parts of the Bill that relate to rogue landlords, banning orders and so on? How do you see that working within the context of London boroughs?
Martin Tett: First, although we welcome the provisions in the Bill, we are not clear that they will necessarily go far enough to make the impact that we all feel is needed. For example, on the level of fines, in my borough we had a landlord who was making £319,000 a year. That is at the extreme end, with landlords who are close to being criminal. A fine of £5,000 would be a minor inconvenience to them. Secondly, we would welcome the proposed register, but it needs to be very accessible. The deputy Mayor has been talking about that. It may be something that individual or would-be tenants need to be able to access.
Philippa Roe: We similarly support the proposals. They sit alongside the tools which, as a council, we already use very effectively—for example, to do with environmental health—to pick up on landlords who are providing substandard properties. The proposals will be another tool in our armoury, which is good.
Phil Glanville: I would go along with what has been said: the proposals are positive. Sharing the tenancy deposit database with local authorities allows them to build up a better picture of landlords in a given area or neighbourhood. It is a question of where thresholds lie in terms of banning orders and the register, and where they will end up. Moving to a fine-based system rather than having to take things to a full prosecution is a positive step—though one questions whether the fines would be enough of a deterrent. In building more tools for our armoury the proposals are a positive step.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 35 I would like to return to part 4. There is nothing on the face of the Bill that would ensure the proceeds from the sale of high-value council homes—or payments to the Secretary of State, in cases where local authorities do not want to make those sales—will be kept in the local area. Miss Roe, you told the Evening Standard in July that as a result of this policy:
“What we will see is a reduction in the number of social housing units in London and more units built outside.”
There are concerns in rural areas, too, that we will not see that link. Let me ask all the witnesses—what would you like to see, or what would need to be amended in the Bill, to give you certainty that the proceeds will be kept locally, to meet housing need in the area from which the proceeds have been taken?
Philippa Roe: First, I was misquoted in that article—that was not quite what I said, although it has been used and used.
As Richard Blakeway said, we understand that London is going to generate far and away the largest proceeds from this measure, given the value of our housing stock. The Government need to find a solution to funding right-to-buy sales outside London, and there is an acceptance that some of the proceeds will have to go outside London. However, there needs to be a mechanism within the regulations for keeping most of that money in London, because it is London that has the biggest housing crisis. It seems sensible to use that money to create housing where it is most needed, so I am hoping that we can find a balance.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 36 You say there is an acceptance that some of the proceeds will leave the capital. Do you think, therefore, that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) to keep the proceeds within London is unrealistic?
Philippa Roe: I would like him to see it succeed. Whether the Government will accept that, given the financial pressures they will face with right-to-buy sales outside London, I do not know. It is worth trying, but I am not sure whether he will succeed.
Mr Bacon
Q 37 Councillor Glanville, you said that you want to build, in your authority, affordable housing on land that you own. You emphasised the importance of exemptions. Are you promoting housing co-operatives as a way of delivering affordable housing? Perhaps the other witnesses could answer for their own authorities.
Phil Glanville: To answer that question, we have quite a few housing co-operatives within the borough already. They tend to be managing existing stock that they have been bequeathed through CPOs in the past and through the squatting movement in the ’70s and ’80s. As far as I am aware, they are not currently seeking to develop. We are focusing on working with housing association partners and our own new build programme that will deliver 3,000 homes over 10 years, 52% of which will be truly affordable. The rental properties there will be council rented homes on our land, making best use of our assets. We are bringing forward 18 sites. In fact, the borough is the largest house builder of any kind within Hackney, including building homes for sale, which is important as we are not against building homes for sale or for low-cost home ownership; we just do not think that the Bill will help with that process in boroughs such as Hackney.
We are also doing regeneration with our partners. We are tripling the density of an estate called Woodberry Down in the north of the borough, where we are building 5,500 homes over the next 20 years. We have no lack of ambition to develop such homes within the borough. With some of the freedoms that Councillor Roe mentioned around the HRA, we could do a lot more.
Mr Bacon
Q 38 To be clear, for the land that you own on which you plan to build affordable housing going forward, the council is not proposing that those be held as housing co-operatives.
Phil Glanville: No.
Sir Steve Bullock: We also do not expect some of our existing housing co-operatives from that historical period to play a significant part going forward, although we are doing other things. Harking back to an earlier question, we have literally just agreed on a scheme for self-build. However, there is an issue with a number of these alternative approaches that is simply about scale. To get the volume of units that we need, we are having to build in thousands, rather than tens and hundreds. However, we have a housing association that is owned by the tenants, which is now beginning to develop itself. We think that that is potentially a useful development going forward.
Mr Bacon
Q 39 Could you clarify what you meant by “scale”?
Sir Steve Bullock: The housing co-ops tend to be very small. We are talking about building 15,000 additional units of housing in Lewisham over the next period. They would not be in a position to build anything like those kinds of numbers.
Mr Bacon
The existing housing co-operatives.
Sir Steve Bullock: Yes.
Martin Tett: I represent the LGA, rather than an individual borough, so it is probably better if I defer to Councillor Roe on this.
Philippa Roe: Similarly, we have big regeneration plans in Westminster. Everybody thinks that Westminster is extremely wealthy, but we actually have four of the poorest wards in the country with extreme deprivation in them. We have massive regeneration plans for those areas, but it will be us, the council, driving that regeneration programme. We will work with the housing associations that happen to have properties in those areas, but it will be mainly driven by the council, working with the private sector. Again, we will be building market housing to help fund the whole scheme, intermediate housing and social housing.
Mr Bacon
Q 42 Given that there is a lot of concern about right to buy, I am puzzled why authorities that wanted to protect affordable housing would not use the housing co-operative route as an obvious exemption. It is certainly obvious from international evidence that it can be done at scale using housing co-operatives.
Philippa Roe: It has crossed our minds as a route that one could look at.
Mr Bacon
You might want to look at Berlin.
Phil Glanville: Returning to what Mayor Bullock said about scale, it is the scalability of the housing co-ops that exist in London that makes it challenging. We are looking at working with, say, the almshouse movement to build new, affordable homes that are also exempt because people are beneficiaries rather than tenants. Where we can innovate on our land, we will do so, but the scale of the crisis in terms of the thousands of homes that we need to build makes it difficult to use the co-op movement as it is currently constituted.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 43 The National Audit Office recently produced a report saying that some local authorities had reduced their budgets for planning and their planning departments by up to 50%. The Bill contains a number of changes that should expedite the planning process. Will this mean that authorities are more likely to staff up their planning departments with the right number of competent people to be able to turn round applications?
Philippa Roe: The absolute key to having the right staffing within our planning departments is to be able to charge a fee that covers the cost of expediting the planning process. At the moment, we cannot charge anything like enough to cover that cost, so basically our council tax payer is subsidising the developers. We are very lucky in Westminster, because of where we are. We have a Westminster Property Association, which funds six planners, to whom its members have access. We can pay appropriate salaries to attract good people, but they are limited to the Westminster Property Association members. I think other local authorities struggle, as we struggle with the rest of our planning applications. As was mentioned earlier, our good people who have Westminster experience are very valuable in the private sector, and they are being hoovered up. We cannot keep them unless we can pay them the appropriate salaries. We really need planning fees to be raised.
Martin Tett: I completely support Councillor Roe on this. There is an almost universal plea from local authorities, whatever their political complexion, that they be allowed to recoup the costs of planning with appropriate planning fees. That would do a great deal to help us to resource up. I also re-echo the point that some of the salaries that the private sector pays good, experienced planners are very high compared with what local government can pay. It is a real challenge.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 44 But would you accept that cutting a planning department’s budget is a false economy?
Martin Tett: I want to echo one thing, to put it in context. Remember that lots of authorities, particularly municipal boroughs, have responsibilities that also include social care for children, safeguarding adults and so on, and almost universally those statutory responsibilities are growing as a proportion of total council budgets, so councils are in a very difficult position. I understand your point, but we have to weigh that against some of the other responsibilities that councils have.
Sir Steve Bullock: I was going to say exactly the same thing. The funding stream that goes into the planning department comes out of the same pot as social care, libraries, youth services and so on.
Brandon Lewis
Q 45 Councillor Glanville, to take you back to your earlier remarks, can you clarify something for me? I think you said that you have recently been able to negotiate down to—did you say 10% of affordable housing? You linked that to starter homes. Can you clarify exactly what you were saying?
Phil Glanville: I think that close to 10% of the Mount Pleasant sites on the border between Islington and Camden—the Royal Mail redevelopment—are affordable.
Brandon Lewis
Q 46 How does that link to starter homes, which have not actually come in yet? I am struggling with why you were linking a scheme that you are negotiating at around 10% with a policy that has not actually come into force yet.
Phil Glanville: Well, the developers work to the viability principles that are set out by the GLA.
Brandon Lewis
Q 47 I am trying to understand how that links to starter homes, which are not yet in force.
Phil Glanville: I think the starter homes will be seen as the first port of call when it comes to the delivery of affordable housing.
Brandon Lewis
Q 48 Right. Just to clarify, the local authority’s negotiation to 10% has nothing to do with the starter homes policy, because that policy is not in place yet.
Phil Glanville: No, but I fear for the future.
Brandon Lewis
Q 49 You also said that you want to build on a lot of the land that you, as a local authority, own. How much land have you got and not built on yet?
Phil Glanville: I do not have that figure in front of me, Minister.
Brandon Lewis
Q 50 Why have you not started building programmes on that land already?
Phil Glanville: We are building 3,000 homes on 18 sites, which is the largest development programme in inner London, and we are looking at a further 15 sites that we hope to develop on-site before 2018. We are making good use of our right-to-buy receipts, which we do not have to return to Government. We are doing all we can to develop new homes on our land within the housing revenue account cap. Once we have been through those sites and built that capacity, we will look at innovating, whether with almshouses, co-ops or housing associations. We are very ambitious about building new homes on our land. As I say, we have one of the largest development programmes in the capital.
Brandon Lewis
Q 51 I have been to see things such as City Mills, which is a really good example of great regeneration work that is bringing back more density. You talked about the HRA cap. How big a cap do you need? What extra capacity do you need in your HRA?
Phil Glanville: We have £168 million, and we have had some recent extensions, which obviously I welcome, from DCLG. It is about having flexibility. Nobody wants to go out and borrow £200 million, £300 million or £400 million, but the way the deals are structured means that to get the best value for the council, you often front-load the development costs to get the best value out of the development. That means that you need more flexibility around the cap, so you can have negotiated periods in which you can exceed the cap for two or three years and then come back down below it. All these schemes would need prudential borrowing requirements and proper financial management—they would not be signed off by the relevant council officers if they did not. A process, even where we had to go to the Secretary of State for that kind of permission, would be useful. I do not think anyone wants to run up the national debt, but the point is to have the flexibility to ensure that the development we need gets off the ground.
Brandon Lewis
Q 52 Are you using your un-ring-fenced reserves for this kind of work or just relying on the HRA?
Phil Glanville: We are looking at using the general fund to fund some of the private homes in those developments.
Brandon Lewis
Q 53 So with your current programmes, you have had an increase in building of over 60% since 2010, which is really good. We want to see more homes, and it is particularly good to see that kind of increase in supply. I assume from your earlier comment, that you also support housing supply and home ownership. Bearing in mind we are rebuilding—the reality is that we dropped below 200,000 first-time buyers in 2009; the figure is back to double what it was then, but we want to see that go further, so that more people have the chance to own their own home—surely starter homes have an important part to play in that. I emphasise, as I think Rick Blakeway did earlier, that there is a difference between the price and cap. I appreciate we all want to see houses below that price, but surely creating affordable homes for first-time buyers is quite an important part of the mix.
Phil Glanville: They could be part of the mix. The challenge of meeting the aspiration for home ownership is whether starter homes are truly affordable in boroughs such as Hackney and inner London where incomes are around £40,000 and below. That can work in shared ownership at the moment within the borough. We are building 500 shared ownership ourselves, because we want to meet that aspiration for low-cost home ownership.
The challenge is where the affordability is. The reality is also that, whether shared ownership or other forms of low-cost ownership like Pocket, they are there in perpetuity, whereas with the starter home discount only the initial purchaser benefits from it and is locked in for five years. That is also a challenge when we go back to the planning process and communities and social mix.
One of the things the planning process is there to do is to ensure that we have a mixed community and development—to have people like “them”, I suppose, in context. When people protest against new development, they often say, “My sons and daughters couldn’t purchase a home there.” The challenge is that, because starter homes come in before other forms of affordable housing, we will not see local people being able to afford to buy them. They will just be on the London market. The need is there, but I think we need to have another look at starter homes.
Brandon Lewis
Q 54 So to an extent, you would agree with what Rick Blakeway said—that they are an important part of a mix. Do you want to see a mix?
Phil Glanville: I just want to see a truly affordable mix, yes.
Brandon Lewis
Q 55 Councillor Tett, on a completely different topic and just taking the LGA—we have become very London-focused in the last half an hour.
Martin Tett: I hadn’t noticed.
Brandon Lewis
Q 56 I appreciate you sit on a county council, having visited you a few times in Buckinghamshire. Looking at part 6 of the Bill on neighbourhood planning, you have a number of areas in your county going through a neighbourhood plan process or which already have the plans. Some 1,600 or so are going through across the country. In terms of giving more flexibility, ease and speed to that process of creating the plans, do you think this could potentially play quite a big part in making sure that communities are more supportive of local development, where they feel they have that control? One of the challenges behind neighbourhood planning is that, like local plans, it is time-consuming. Do you think speeding up the process across local government and more importantly in the communities themselves will be welcomed?
Martin Tett: Are we supportive of neighbourhood planning? Absolutely. There is an enormous advantage in allowing local communities to shape the future of their own area, be they villages or towns; not just in terms of housing, but in terms of the style and architecture and where the facilities are based. We have seen significant engagement across the country where neighbourhood planning has been introduced.
One of the issues that arises is that sometimes neighbourhood planning runs ahead of the other local plan, for example, in district councils in rural areas. We have a number of examples where neighbourhood plans are in place but there is no local plan for the surrounding district, so they lack the overall planning context of how many houses the area will have. They may face the disappointment that, in the future, they have to effectively redo their plan because the housing numbers are significantly higher than were originally anticipated. Certainly in terms of community engagement, they have been successful. From the point of view of Buckinghamshire and from talking with other county leaders, I think neighbourhood plans have gained a lot of traction across the country.
Brandon Lewis
Q 57 If we are able to get the neighbourhood plans simpler and a bit quicker to get through for communities, but with links to areas that have a local plan, do you think that that proper, joined-up approach for community engagement and for ultimately delivering the housing we need would be welcomed by the local authorities?
Martin Tett: I am just trying to make sure that I fully understood your question. In terms of speeding up the delivery of local plans, we welcome anything that makes the local planning process simpler. We still believe that democratic accountability in local planning is important. That is what gets the local community buy-in to the ultimate adoption of local plans. Not in every case will the local community be fully supportive of a local plan, but if it is seen to be the local councillors they voted for who can explain to them why something has been done and why it is necessary, by and large you will get more acceptance than, for example, if there were, in extremis, a Government inspector appointed from Bristol who comes in and effectively writes the local plan for a community. We would like to ensure that local communities and local councillors effectively remain in the driving seats in developing local plans for their areas and that neighbourhood planning fits within the context of an overall local plan adopted by a council.
The Chair
Minister, can I be rude enough to say that with an eye on the clock, I want to hear from Roberta Blackman-Woods?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 58 I was struck by your opening remarks, where you all talked about having infrastructure to support housing development and building housing in communities. I wonder whether you think the Bill should do more to address the need for infrastructure and what you think about the provisions that could exempt some starter home sites from paying CIL. Would you like to see that amended?
Sir Steve Bullock: One of the things that will be important is that the Bill does not get in the way—this will largely be around the exemptions—of some of the big and complex schemes that we are doing. Those are, in effect, sweating land that is already there and intensifying the development. Some of that takes time and there are risks that we need to avoid. If the number of leaseholders on a development goes up and you are planning a comprehensive regeneration, you can make it unviable. It is those kinds of things. Crucially, working across Departments will be important. I am not sure whether the Bill can help that, but we need to be sure that it does not hinder that.
Martin Tett: I will comment on the generality. I mentioned the importance of infrastructure at the beginning. When I go to public meetings, it is the big topic raised by local communities whenever a development is talked about, and it is obviously significant when you have a major development of many hundred houses. There is also the cumulative impact of lots of small infill developments. People tend to ignore the impact of 10 or 15 houses, but if you have lots of them, particularly where large houses are being redeveloped in rural areas, you can cumulatively have a significant impact. People see the difference in their commute, their journeys and so on. There is a large impact in the south-east, which is already densely populated and seeing significant housing growth. The need to address the issue of adequate contributions towards local infrastructure is fundamental.
Philippa Roe: Some parts of the Bill are still being ironed out and discussed, such as those relating to who has which powers between the Mayor and the London boroughs. It is absolutely vital that any housing development regeneration is driven by the boroughs, because they have a far better understanding of the infrastructure impacts in their local areas. I just cannot see how a top-down approach, given how diverse the 33 boroughs are, can work in that holistic approach.
Phil Glanville: The 20% discount for starter homes is probably not enough to be offset in terms of the community infrastructure requirements. There is an element that some of that is local decision making. We decided to exempt the Woodberry Down regeneration from CIL, because of the challenges of the infrastructure: building the new schools, delivering the employment opportunities and delivering the public realm. You need flexibility at a local level to make some of those decisions, but I am not sure that the 20% discount warrants a full exemption.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 59 There is broad agreement that we need to increase supply, but as you said, Councillor Glanville, affordability is key. There is no statutory definition of affordability, and the Bill gives the impression that the working definition is 80% of market rent. Do you think there is an opportunity here to define what we mean by affordable?
Philippa Roe: No, I think that would be too prescriptive. The definition of affordable is up to 80% of market. That is absolutely crucial because it will be different in different boroughs. Each borough has different needs. For example, in Westminster about a quarter of housing stock is social housing; about 1% or 1.5% is affordable for that next tier of low to middle-income workers, and the rest is very expensive, either to rent or to buy.
Our real gap is that intermediate. Our businesses are telling us that that is a real gap. All the supermarket shelf-stackers, people working in our restaurants and theatres and so on, need homes where they can commute at a reasonable cost and time. That is Westminster and we are quite different from perhaps an outer London borough or Tower Hamlets or, indeed, some of the boroughs round the table. As long as we have the flexibility of up to 80%, given as the definition of affordable, then each borough can do it appropriately for their area.
The Chair
Without being impolite to the other witnesses, I fear that we have come to 10.45 am, which is the end of our allotted time for the session. Thank you very much to all four of our witnesses for their extremely useful and interesting evidence. I ask the next panel to come to the floor.
If there is anything members of this panel want to say and have not had an opportunity to say, we welcome written evidence at a later stage.
Examination of Witnesses
The Chair
Q 60 This is the final session of the morning, running to 11.25 am, when I will cut us off quickly. I welcome our final panel, Mr Orr and Ms Butters. Will you kindly introduce yourselves for the sake of the record?
David Orr: I am David Orr, chief executive of the National Housing Federation.
Sinéad Butters: I am Sinéad Butters, chief executive of the Aspire Group, but today I am chair of PlaceShapers and represent the views of 116 local community-based housing associations across the country.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 61 Mr Orr, regarding the voluntary agreement that you came to with Government over the right to buy, many housing associations voted no, many were unable to convene their boards and come to a decision, yet clause 58 of the Bill brings them within the remit of a compliance mechanism under the home ownership criteria. What options do those housing associations have, given that this will be a statutory measure imposed on them?
David Orr: That is an interestingly framed question. The offer that we put to our members and then to Government was a voluntary deal on the right to buy that would cover the whole sector. Everyone who voted, even the small number who voted no, understood that what we were crafting was an offer that included the whole sector. Indeed, quite a number of the individual responses that we got from people who said no none the less said, “We understand that if the overall result is yes, we will be involved.”
Matthew Pennycook
Q 62 And those that did not have time to reply?
David Orr: In overall terms, that was a relatively small number. We have continued to have conversations with those organisations, as we have with all of our members. People had the opportunity to take part in that vote; they expressed their views; many of those who voted yes had reservations that they described to us; some of those who voted no said that they could see some value in it. None of this was easy and straightforward. We have continued to be in regular contact with all of our members about the implications. We will be working with Government and others on a piece of work to craft more of the detail that follows from the deal.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 63 Following on from that, there are lots of areas of the Bill where we await further regulations and statutory instruments. What would be the sector’s reaction if the Government did not deliver on commitments given under that voluntary deal?
David Orr: I have been asked this question on a number of occasions and my answer is always the same: this is a voluntary deal. If the Government, for whatever reason, fail to meet the commitments that they have agreed to under the deal, the deal falls. If we fail to meet the commitments that we have agreed to under the voluntary deal, the deal falls. I have no expectation that that is going to happen—I think that the core principles that we wrote into the deal will be the basis on which it operates, but if not the deal will fall.
Helen Hayes
Q 64 Some of the housing associations that recently appeared before the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government indicated that they thought the likely impact of this Bill would be fewer homes delivered by housing associations for social and other forms of affordable rent. I wanted to ask both of you, first, what you think the net impact of the Bill will be on housing associations’ delivery of social and other affordable forms of homes for rent and, secondly, whether you fear developers deserting housing associations in favour of delivering starter homes themselves?
Sinéad Butters: Our members have raised significant concerns about the potential erosion of social rented housing as a result of a combination of impacts. That combination includes the pay-to-stay option, the starter homes initiative and, depending on what is replaced under right to buy, the erosion of social housing under right to buy. What I would like to make absolutely clear is that our members collaborated with the Government on the home ownership options and see home ownership as one part of something—it is not “either/or”, it is an “and” for our members.
The impact on the future for social rented housing prompts the question, where will the poorest live? If there is nowhere for poor people to live in future, one might imagine that poverty is decreasing, yet I do not see that. It is a very real question. We would ask for the flexibility to have local solutions in the areas where we work closely with local authorities to determine what is needed in that area, including a range of social rented housing, home ownership options, market rent and sale. Our members would embrace the opportunity to work locally to make sure that what the community needs is what the community gets.
David Orr: The Bill itself is a relatively small part of a combined package. If we are going to build a whole lot of new homes we need land first and foremost. Anything that this Bill can do to help to release land for new home building would be helpful. Like Sinéad, I have anxieties about the competing priorities in the space where section 106 presently operates. It has been a useful mechanism for delivering affordable homes for rent and for shared ownership, and a useful mechanism for volume developers to front-end the cash for their developments. If all these things are squeezed out by starter homes, the impact is likely to be a reduction in the overall supply. If we are able, as Sinéad has said, to have an environment where we see significant growth in new home building across all tenures—some for market sale, market rent, social rent, shared ownership, starter homes—that is where we need to be. We need to have this mixed-tenure package. The new homes that we build need to be across all tenures.
With regard specifically to the ability to provide social rent, I think that the Government have made it clear that they do not consider social rent to be their top priority. It remains the top priority for housing associations. The spending review will obviously be an important component, depending on what money, if any, is available to support that. Right to buy, certainly in some markets, has the potential to liberate assets that would then be turned to cash and could be used to build social rented homes. That will vary according to the different markets in different parts of the country. There is a range of factors that will influence this, but I am anxious about starter homes appearing in the section 106 space and crowding everything else out.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 65 I also sat through the Select Committee hearing, and listened to the evidence from the housing associations. I took the absolutely opposite view, so perhaps we should review the evidence together.
In an article on your website, Mr Orr, under the heading, “More homes to rent (and buy)”, you state that,
“our offer to the government will see an increase in the number of…homes built, which has the potential to ease pressure in all parts of the market, including the rental market.”
Do you still stand by that in the overall context of this agreement?
David Orr: I completely stand by that being the offer that housing associations want to be able to deliver. We published a document called “An ambition to deliver” and I commend it to you, because it is a very strong statement of ambition about getting—at some point in the future—to a position where we are able to build perhaps 120,000 homes a year, half for sale and half for rent, half market value and half subsidised. That is exactly that: making a contribution across all parts of the market. We are completely committed to doing that. Ideally we would want to be working with Government—whichever Government—and local government to work in partnership to deliver that kind of package.
The most fundamental thing that will make a difference is access to land, both publicly and privately owned land. If you look at the pattern of provision, we have failed dismally to build the number of new homes that we need, particularly in rural England, and part of the reason is that we just say, “There’s no land.” We have kind of given up. We need to stop giving up because there is plenty of land that we could build on. Measures that speed up planning are helpful. Measures that give priority to the expectation of delivery of new homes are helpful. Accessing land is the thing without which the rest will not really work.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 66 Can you see measures in the Bill that will speed up the planning process?
David Orr: I see measures that have the potential to speed up the planning process.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 67 At the moment, it seems as if homes sold under the right to buy will not have to be replaced in the same area. Do you have any concerns that that might lead to further regional disparities in the amount of affordable accommodation available? Would you like to see an amendment that would ensure that they are replaced in the same area?
Sinéad Butters: Our members certainly would. They are concerned about like for like replacements in the same geographical areas. The overriding factor is that local authorities working with their housing association partners can decide on what is appropriate for that community and have the flexibility to apply that. Some of the provisions in the Bill, such as the pay-to-stay provisions, are blunt instruments applied nationally which do not take account of local factors.
We would like to see that. Our members would be keen to ensure that those strong relations with local authorities in helping meeting housing need are maintained.
David Orr: I think this is a matter for individual housing associations and the conversations they have with local government partners and others. If, in any given local authority area, housing associations sell under the right to buy, I think how they are replaced is a matter for them in discussion with their local authority partners. I am not keen to impose unnecessary restrictions. It seems to me that we are under a great deal of pressure. There is much less public money going into new housing and we need to retain as much flexibility as we can. We have to look at the objectives and the pattern of behaviour of housing associations across the country. They mainly want to invest in the areas that they work in. That is what they care about, right across the country. I am anxious that we are creating a debate that will not turn into anything in real life because, in practice, if people sell they will want to try to replace in those areas where they can.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 68 I might come back to that later if there is time. I wanted to move on very briefly to the pay-to-stay provisions, because you mentioned them. I wonder how workable you think the provisions in the Bill are and whether, as a result of pay-to-stay, some of your tenants will not only have to pay a higher rent, but be able to claim housing benefit. Is that an economically competent set of proposals?
Sinéad Butters: We have case studies and examples that demonstrate just that: people who are at the margins of the £30,000 for a variety of reasons—bear in mind that that is two working adults outside London earning £15,000 a year—are judged to be able to pay a market rent. It is of significant concern to me and to our members when people are at the edges. The case studies indicate that some working-age adults in those particular circumstances would find that a disincentive to work or to gain promotion or to take on extra hours. That is why we are really concerned about the one-size-fits-all figure.
While we recognise that people who could pay more for a product should be able to, we can make those choices locally, but the blunt instrument of £30,000 outside London is really going to act as a disincentive. We have a number of examples of people who are, say, on zero-hours contracts or in part-time work where it would not be in their interests to take a promotion, because they would not be able to afford their rent.
David Orr: I think pay-to-stay is wrong in principle. Government should not be setting rents for housing associations, and personally I believe that Government should not be setting rents for local authorities either. Accountable boards and accountable local authorities should set the rents that they think are appropriate for their organisations, their neighbourhoods and their tenants.
The challenges we recently encountered with the Office for National Statistics and the classification decision all make it more difficult for housing associations to operate independently. I am very pleased that the Government said that they wish to see housing associations be independent bodies in classification terms. We should not be taking measures where Government tell; we should have measures where Government enable.
This is an absolutely clear case in point. For some housing associations, pay-to-stay, externally imposed, will be an administrative nightmare that will end up costing a huge amount of money and have an adverse impact on the day-to-day relationships with tenants. In an environment where housing associations had a much broader ability to set their own rents, they could think more strategically about markets, neighbourhoods and places where you would charge higher rents and where you would charge lower rents, and that is where we have to get to.
The Chair
You have sparked a great deal of interest and quite a lot of people are catching my eye, so may I ask for both questions and answers to be as crisp as possible in the 20 minutes left?
Mr Jackson
Q 69 May I ask you, Ms Butters, to restate your specific opposition to pay-to-stay? It seems that you might be overlooking fairness and social equity issues and the release of funds that the policy may very well give rise to. London aside, I would contend that £30,000 is significantly above an average wage in somewhere such as Stoke-on-Trent or Newcastle-under-Lyme or several other parts of your area. Therefore, apart from the administrative, bureaucratic issues that Mr Orr mentioned, on what basis do you oppose the policy?
Sinéad Butters: There are two reasons. One is the need for local housing providers to be able to make judgments about what their area needs and to reflect the points you made about affordability. An imposed national figure of £30,000 will not take account of local need and local incomes.
In Stoke, 38% of the working adult population earns £16,000, so two adults together would be above the £30,000 limit, yet that is a marginal figure for being able to pay a market rent. I accept that market rents in Stoke are low, but in other areas they are not. We had the example of a tenant in Oxfordshire whose particular circumstances could mean that her rent would be tripled from £600 to £1,800. Obviously, there are issues about tapers and how they would apply, but this national approach with a single £30,000 outside of London does not take account of local circumstances, and that is our greatest fear. For me, it is about the ability of housing associations to set rents that are appropriate for that tenant, and the freedoms and flexibilities that the National Housing Federation has talked about. That will mean a range of different choices, working with our local authority partners, on how to pitch and what is right for their area in terms of affordability. This does not allow us that flexibility.
Mr Jackson
Q 70 But you agree that registered providers, with the extra income that may arise from this policy—I do not know whether you have any examples; you mentioned some examples earlier—may have the authority and autonomy to ring-fence for developing other sites for social rented housing.
Sinéad Butters: Absolutely, but the point I am making is that that ability to use the additional receipts should be based upon known local circumstances—local incomes and local affordability—and not set nationally. That would allow flexibility.
David Orr: May I add something here? Rents in our sector are a shambles because of Government intervention in rent-setting for the past 17 years. Decisions that are made for short-term reasons, which do not understand the long-term impact, have created a pattern of rents that is almost incomprehensible to anyone. We would like to be in a position to relocate responsibility where it lies: with the boards of individual housing associations, to provide housing and associated amenities in accordance with their objectives and to be responsible for charging appropriate rents. The rents will be different for different people in different parts of the market. Part of pay-to- stay says, is it sometimes appropriate to charge people higher rents if they have higher incomes? Yes. Is it right for Government to be imposing it? No.
Mr Jackson
Q 71 That is a fair point, Mr Orr, but this is at the beginning of the process and Ministers might surprise you in a pleasant way.
David Orr: Good. I am always happy to be surprised in a pleasant way.
Mr Jackson
Q 72 Far be it from me to speak for the Ministers, but are you really suggesting that registered providers operate in a hermetically sealed bubble, given that the housing benefit bill has spiralled significantly over the past 20 years? The Government surely have a fiscal responsibility to make big strategic decisions in the provision of public housing when they have a spiralling housing benefit bill.
David Orr: The housing benefit bill is spiralling primarily because the number of people who need to claim housing benefit has grown as rents have grown, and because of the number of people in work in the private rented sector who have to claim housing benefit. It is not fundamentally about the growth of rents in the social sector, but, where rents have grown in the social sector, that has been a direct consequence of Government decision making. So I can sit here and say, “It’s not our fault, guv. It’s your responsibility. It’s Government decision making.” I don’t think that is acceptable. I think that local government and the public should be able to hold housing associations to account for the rents that they charge. It has been the case in the past that when the Government were setting rents, they also said that housing benefit would cover the cost of those rents. I am afraid that the decision to set the overall benefit cap at £20,000 and £23,000 means that rents that the Government have themselves set are not now, in a significant number of cases, covered by housing benefit. So if the Government want to limit their exposure by what they do with housing benefit rules, they should withdraw from rent-setting.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Q 73 I want to go back to starter homes and the issues that you have touched on. A survey found that 6 million people— 5.84 million, in fact—earn less than the living wage. That is not a TUC figure; it is from KPMG. Some 23% of the labour force earn less than the living wage, and the numbers are going up. There are 750,000 people on zero-hours contracts. What is there in the Bill to address the housing needs of that substantial sector of people who we refer to as the working poor?
David Orr: There is little in the Bill that addresses that group specifically. The only real new housing or tenure product that it contains is the starter home initiative. As a component of a much wider, mixed-tenure, mixed-priced series of developments, starter homes have a role to play, but a comprehensive transfer away from social rent or shared ownership towards starter homes would be a mistake. They have a role to play as part of a broad pattern of provision, but not instead of the other things we are doing.
Seema Kennedy
Q 74 Mr Orr, I want to ask you about affordable housing in rural areas, and the portable discount in particular. Will you expand on that? How do you think it will affect the affordability of housing in rural areas?
David Orr: In the voluntary deal, we have agreed with the Government that in small, rural areas, in most cases, housing associations will almost certainly say no to a request to sell a home that a tenant is currently occupying, but they will have the opportunity to use the portable discount, which I hope will help to stimulate the development of new supply.
The fundamental challenge in rural England is that we need to build more homes, especially ones that are affordable for young families. Rural England is being hollowed out. As the 25-45 population grows in the country at large, it is declining in rural areas, because people cannot afford to live in villages that are often becoming like theme park villages, and that are in danger of becoming mausoleums. How we invest in new supply to keep rural England dynamic is a huge strategic challenge. The portable discount might create some of the financing that will allow that to happen, but we need to take a broad view and say it is time we addressed what is a genuine crisis in rural England.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q 75 What is your estimate of the net impact of the Bill on London?
David Orr: I do not have a detailed estimate.
Mr Thomas
Q 77 With respect, the housing associations among your membership must have given you some indication of their view of the Bill’s effect in London.
David Orr: They have. If you assume that over time 5% or 10% of homes might be sold under the right to buy, that will raise very considerable sums that can be invested in new supply. I do not have a statistical analysis to back this up—we can ask our research team and provide further information if we have it—but my view is that it is likely to deliver an increase in both the number of homes built and the number of homes for social rent. Under the existing arrangements, it is very difficult to build for social rent unless you trade, sell and make a profit, and then use that profit to create the subsidy. The voluntary right to buy has the potential to release some of that trapped equity and allow it to be used for building new homes. It is likely that London housing associations will focus on building for social rent, as well as shared ownership and other products.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 80 Ms Butters, I think you referred to the provisions under clause 74 on high-income social tenants as a blunt instrument, yet you conceded that there is provision to charge a proportion of market rent—I think you made some cursory reference to the taper. Is that not proof that the clause is not a blunt instrument?
Sinéad Butters: For us it is about the freedom and flexibility to set our own rents—decisions for our local areas, made by our boards, working with our communities and our local authority partners. I can understand that the taper has been set to mitigate some of the negative impact of applying that blunt instrument, in terms of an immediate move to market rents from social or affordable rents; however, that would not be my answer. My recommendation would be locally set rents, determined by local areas, with boards and local authority partners. We would still see the potential for those choices about higher-income tenants, but they would be based on real evidence and real income data and analysis, not on a judgment about what level is set nationally.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 81 But the principle is that it is inappropriate for taxpayers to subsidise someone who can live in market-value housing. Do you accept that principle?
Sinéad Butters: Yes. Absolutely.
Teresa Pearce
Q 82 Mr Orr, on the voluntary deal, your organisation and the G15 will work very closely. It is my understanding that the G15 opposes the forced sale of vacant high-value council homes. Is that the position of the National Housing Federation?
David Orr: Just to be clear, the G15 are all members of the National Housing Federation, so we are all part of the same group, as is PlaceShapers. The deal that we have done with the Government is one that says that if the Government provide funding for a discount we will organise the sales. It is the job of the Government, under that voluntary arrangement, to find the finances to fund that. We have never proposed the sale of high-value council stock as a means of paying for it—that is a proposal that came from the Government—and we have not and will not endorse the proposal.
Teresa Pearce
Q 83 So you are in the same position as the wider federation of the G15?
David Orr: As a wider federation, what we have been trying very clearly to do is to locate the responsibility for the decision where it lies, which is with the Government. It is not a decision for us, and it is not a proposal we have ever sought or have ever endorsed, and we have no plans to do so.
Sinéad Butters: Similarly, we pride ourselves on our strong relations as community-based housing associations, and therefore we do not endorse the sale of high-value council homes in order to fund this.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q 84 If I understand it correctly, you both say that you agree that those who earn more should pay more, and I think you have both said that housing associations should have the discretion to set rates, but I understand that there is already provision to set higher rents for those who earn £60,000 or more. How many associations use that provision at the moment and, for those that do not, why not?
David Orr: Very few of them do, partly because there are very few people in those circumstances and partly because housing associations do not always know because they do not have a particular obligation to require that information from their tenants. We do not have very detailed data. Also, it is partly because it is very administratively complex to impose such things.
My view is that we should not think about this in terms of specifically focusing on individual households. We should offer different products at different prices in different parts of the housing market, among which people have the opportunity to choose. Our housing market is not nearly varied enough, and housing associations are an integral part of providing more variety and different pricing in different parts of the market.
I also think that we need to be smarter about how we turn things from a threat into an offer if someone is a tenant of a housing association and their income increases. Rather than pay-to-stay, I would much rather the housing association was in a position to say, “If your income is increasing, we would be happy to sell you a small equity share in the property that you live in.” That has the same effect of providing cash that the housing association can use, and the tenant gets an active benefit from it rather than just paying a higher rent. We have to be much more creative about how we look at all of this and how we change that relationship. In order to do that—to echo what Sinéad was saying—housing associations have to be much more free to run and manage their own businesses. This is a theme that we will be coming to all the time.
Maria Caulfield
Q 85 I agree with you in that sense, but if you are not actually collecting that information, that makes it very hard to gather evidence for that argument. If we really need to target—
David Orr: We don’t need to collect evidence about people’s income if we are making them an offer by saying that if they are in a position to buy an equity share that will gain in value over time, we will provide that for them.
Maria Caulfield
Q 86 Okay, but if we really want social housing to be for those on a lower income, if you are not collecting that information it makes it very difficult to gain support for your argument. You are not collecting information on which of your tenants actually earns that amount in the first place. I find it hard to understand how you have that evidence if you do not collect it yourselves.
David Orr: We presently have no legal basis for requiring that information. We can ask.
Maria Caulfield
Q 87 Hence why it is in the Bill.
David Orr: Well, pay-to-stay is in the Bill. One of the mechanisms that would deliver that is by requiring information to be given—
The Chair
Order. We have four minutes, and four Members are trying to catch my eye. The current point has been explored reasonably well.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 88 Mr Orr, you have clearly given an indication that you would like to see more freedoms around rents. Clause 73 specifies further reductions in regulations to come. What specific freedoms will the National Housing Federation be pressing for?
David Orr: We have said for a long time that housing associations must have much greater freedoms to manage their own assets. We have to change the present disposals consent by which a housing association requires the consent of the regulator to dispose of any building or any asset. I just gave the example of the sale of a £1,000 equity share in a property, which at the moment requires a valuation of the property and a specific disposal consent. That is just completely absurd. We need to remove all that kind of unnecessary bureaucracy, which basically leaves the regulator with a determining say in how an independent social enterprise uses or disposes of the assets that it owns. There are a number of other things which follow from the ONS determination which need to be looked at again, and also the circumstances in which the regulator might be able to intervene at board level. We need to be much clearer about what those relationships are.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 89 And specifics on allocations?
David Orr: I think that we need to have a different approach to nominations and allocations, which is much more about local negotiations between housing associations and local authorities, and then contractual relationships which are potentially subject to change. Housing associations do not want to move away from the business of providing housing for people who are in the greatest housing need, and working with local authority partners to deliver it. However, they do want to be in a position where they can say that if they are charging a rent which is 70% of the market value, they do not think it is appropriate to allocate that to someone who is in the greatest housing need far away from the jobs market, and who will become more trapped in benefit dependency by being offered that product. We need to have greater variation in those local discussions.
Brandon Lewis
Q 90 Very briefly, returning to the first part of the Bill, Mr Thomas made a comment earlier about linking right to buy and starter homes. Mr Orr, bearing in mind that the voluntary agreement means that for every home sold an extra home will be built, do you think that right to buy will lead to a housing supply increase? Within that, do you think that housing associations will be looking to deliver starter homes as part of the mix of housing that they deliver, and will be able to do this?
David Orr: Yes and yes. There will be an increase in supply, which will liberate some presently trapped assets that can be used for building new homes. Housing associations will build some starter homes, and they will build a lot of shared ownership homes. They will build as much social housing for rent as they can, and they will continue to build for market sale and market rent. We are becoming much more pluralist in the offer that we make to the nation.
Sinéad Butters: But—
The Chair
I am sorry, Ms Butters, but we have come to 11.25 am, which is an absolutely sharp cut-off point. I apologise for cutting you off in that way. I thank both our witnesses for their evidence. It has been extremely useful and interesting, and we are most grateful.
Housing and Planning Bill (Second sitting)
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Welcome back to the second evidence session of the Housing and Planning Bill Committee stage. I particularly welcome our three witnesses from the British Property Federation, the Federation of Master Builders and the Home Builders Federation.
Examination of Witnesses
The Chair
Gentlemen, for the record, will you kindly identify yourselves?
Andrew Whitaker: I am Andrew Whitaker, planning director at the Home Builders Federation.
Brian Berry: I am Brian Berry, chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders.
Ian Fletcher: I am Ian Fletcher, director of policy at the British Property Federation.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Q 9191 It has been suggested that it will be more profitable for developers to build starter homes than other types of affordable housing. Do you think there is a risk that starter homes will crowd out other types of affordable housing on developments? Do you think there should be any exemptions to developments having to provide starter homes, and what would those exemptions be?
The Chair
Answer as you will; just freelance it. You do not all have to answer all questions. Just jump in.
Brian Berry: It will be more profitable for builders to do starter homes; they will get 80% of the market value, compared with other types of tenure where they would have to negotiate section 106 agreements or give the land. On exemptions, you might want to look at very small sites—five or fewer, or even 10 or fewer—because that could affect the viability of small developments coming forward.
Andrew Whitaker: I think it is more of a balanced approach than that. You are looking at providing housing for all sorts of people, right across the housing market. Therefore, hitherto we have focused a little bit too much on social rented housing and full market housing. Therefore, allowing for this more intermediate market to be met—and there is a need for this kind of housing—I think you will see a much more balanced picture across the country with different types of tenure to meet different needs.
Ian Fletcher: To respond to the last part of the question about exemptions, we have a specific issue on the site-specific requirements for starter homes. My life’s work has been trying to get a build-to-rent sector off the ground in the UK where pension fund money is investing in rented accommodation. That is happening. We have just measured and we have about 25,000 units in the pipeline. But a site-specific requirement for starter homes does not really work with build to rent and could kill off that sector before it gets going.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 92 It might be useful to have more detail on that specific point but I will move on. In addition to raising queries about the type of property being built, there is nothing about the standards to which the new homes should be built, or improving the quality. Do you think we can rely on developers pushing up the quality of what is delivered?
Andrew Whitaker: Yes, I certainly think you can. You can rely on the building regulations to meet all sorts of requirements for new homes. In terms of urban design, the Home Builders Federation is very keen to promote the building-for-life standards. That will apply just as much to starter homes as to other kinds of house building development.
Brian Berry: I would just add to that. Small builders’ business depends very much on their reputation, so they tend to build quality homes. If they were not building quality homes that met market needs they would be out of business. In that sense, the concerns you may have about quality should be allayed, particularly if you bring in more developers that are small and medium-sized enterprises.
Ian Fletcher: I have no concerns about the quality of the build of the accommodation, for the reasons that colleagues have set out. What makes a housing development is not just the built quality of the housing but the other services—social services, schools and healthcare—that support it. I have some concerns about the relief that could be given on community infrastructure levy contributions and section 106. From where will the infrastructure on those developments be funded?
I want to come back quickly to the build-to-rent point. The reason a site-specific requirement for starter homes does not work for build to rent is that the institutions that invest in that sort of accommodation do so for 10, 20 or 30 years and want to have control over the development to ensure it remains a quality place to live. If you have a specific requirement for some starter homes, they lose control of their investment.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I would like to ask Mr Berry about chapter 2 of the Bill, on self-build and custom house building. Specifically, do you think the Bill provides enough motivation for people to be on the self-build register, in terms of linking the presence on the register to decisions about how serviced plots are brought forward and allocated?
Brian Berry: May I start by saying that most of our members think that this is a very encouraging market and support the whole principle of custom build? The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 set up the register for interested people, but we are concerned about how it is coupled with the provisions in the Bill, which seems to water down the obligation to locate plots for people on the register. It suggests that local authorities must ensure that there are sufficient planning permissions, which is rather different. We are concerned that those on the register could be put off even hoping for a plot of land to build on. We would like to see that changed, because 89% of our members say they are interested in looking into this market.
Mr Bacon
Q 93 The Bill provides for exemptions and states that the Secretary of State “may” direct that a local authority is not subject to the duty to give suitable development permissions in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet local demand. Do you think that is potentially a big let-out clause?
Brian Berry: I think we need to look at the whole exemption side. There is a danger that it will be a let-out clause. Local authorities should be looking at all ways of delivering custom built housing, even if that means looking at existing buildings that could be converted and customised. I share that concern.
Mr Bacon
Q 94 I have a question about the definition of “self-build” and “custom house building”. The Bill rightly excludes plots where the person selling the plot is the person who wholly or mainly decides the plans or specifications. That is obviously to avoid the gaming of the system, but will the definition work in practice?
Brian Berry: That is a good question. We also have concerns about the definition. You obviously want to make it sufficiently encompassing that it does not deter various forms of custom build housing, but you do not want to make it so wide that it includes minor or superficial adjustments to standardised housing. That part of the Bill needs to be looked at in detail to ensure it is clearer.
Mr Bacon
Q 95 So a volume house builder offering a fifth choice of tile colour, rather than just four choices, would not meet your standard.
Brian Berry: Absolutely. That is right.
Andrew Whitaker: We are rather concerned about that, too. A lot of the smaller developers who are members of our federation are very keen to provide what you would imagine to be custom build. The parody that you paint of course should not be allowed, but we think the definition goes a lot further than that and will exclude some genuine custom built products.
Mr Bacon
Q 97 Really? Can you give an example of a custom house building product that would be excluded under the definition?
Andrew Whitaker: If a developer is offering a custom build product—we have members who are doing this—whereby you get to choose, for example, the internal layout of your property, that to our mind would be excluded by the clause, yet that is a perfectly reasonable definition of custom build.
Mr Bacon
Q 98 Why? The specification would then be wholly or mainly determined by the client, would it not?
Andrew Whitaker: No, because you do not have the ultimate choice about the internal arrangement of the house. You get to pick from a range. Not all house types fit within the skin of a particular house.
Mr Bacon
Q 99 The exterior walls are obviously defined, but if the client or customer can decide where the walls and floors go or do not go in the interior, that would be wholly or mainly decided by the client, would it not?
Andrew Whitaker: Not if you were picking from a pattern book, which could be any number of different layouts. How many are you suggesting would not be entitled to be a custom build product—two different choices, or five, or 10? That is not made clear.
Mr Bacon
Q 100 When you say it is a pattern book, that makes it sound like a pattern book offered by the volume house builder. Is that what you are saying?
Andrew Whitaker: Not at all—it is not the volume house builder that is providing this custom build product. It is smaller developers who are offering custom build products. They have been given money from the Department for Communities and Local Government to investigate custom build products. That is precisely what they are doing now. They are concerned that this clause will stop them from doing what they are currently doing, under custom build.
Mr Bacon
Q 101 Is not the whole point of a custom build approach that it is the customer who decides, not what you call a pattern book?
Andrew Whitaker: If you start from the point of saying, “Here is the outer skin of the building and that has been determined for all sorts of good planning or urban design reasons,” what you can put in it is limited. That will be explained to you by the relevant builder.
Mr Bacon
Q 102 It is limited by the laws of physics—yes, I accept that. But other than that, it is not very limited, is it?
Andrew Whitaker: Very, yes. The developer will say, “Right, you can choose from 10 different internal floor types.” That is what I am saying. Well—does that meet your definition? We do not think that it does.
Mr Bacon
Q 103 I have one more question, Mr Whitaker. You were talking earlier about quality. The new nationally described space standards are currently guidance. Do you think they should be building regulations?
Andrew Whitaker: We do not think they should be building regulations. We think that all the national regulations do is set out guidance for people so that, locally, they can determine whether they need them. Therefore they would have to provide evidence as to why they wanted to see bigger houses built in their area and why they were applying the national standard. If people are already proposing houses that meet the national standard, there is no need to have that national standard.
Mr Bacon
Q 104 Mr Berry, do you think it would be helpful if space standards were turned into building regulations, so that there was a minimum to which builders had to adhere?
Brian Berry: Not necessarily, because we do not want extra layers of regulatory requirements on SMEs who are already struggling in terms of access to the market. I understand the concern you raise, because people have talked about space standards and the fact that houses are getting smaller. That probably reflects the state of the housing market in this country, though, where we are struggling to deliver the number of homes that are required because of certain barriers that need to be addressed. There are other issues, therefore—one of which is to get more SMEs back into the market, which might overcome this and deliver the homes that are required in terms of supply and demand.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Q 105 I have two questions, if I may. First, many people who are likely to access starter homes are likely to be in a position to buy in any case. Do you think the Bill as it stands will widen the pool of potential home buyers?
Brian Berry: I would have thought that it would. We know that 86% of people in this country aspire to owning their own home. Owner-occupation levels have dropped over the last 10 years. We support owner-occupation and this is a means to encourage more people to get on the housing ladder. We feel that this is another leg up for people, when prices are moving year on year. Yes, I conclude that it is positive.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 106 In terms of general supply and building, can you explain why you think this will deliver additional homes? Will it do anything to deliver and build out the 200,000-plus permissions that already exist?
Andrew Whitaker: Certainly it will create a different market. That will therefore increase the overall supply of houses, because you are targeting a different market. As Mr Berry says, you are focusing on specific areas of the market and that will open it up to new people. We would be concerned if all you were doing was robbing Peter to pay Paul. We would stress that this must open up new markets.
In terms of building out the existing permissions, that is a far more difficult picture. We do not envisage a lot of people going back round the planning system to put starter homes in their existing planning permissions. We see this probably as going forward. In terms of building out the permissions that people have already got, that is normally subject to the market rate for that particular area. Therefore, if you follow the logic of my first statement that we would want to see this hit different markets, then yes, it will mean that people can build out permissions going forward at a faster rate, because they will be targeting more sectors of the market.
Ian Fletcher: My view would be that we cannot look at the Bill in isolation from wider Government policy on housing. I think that starter homes may get existing players to build more homes. However, when you are looking at extending capacity of the house building sector as a whole, things like build to rent, which we are promoting, are doing that.
Your second point was around—
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Q 107 I remember my question. Mr Fletcher, first, may I thank you and the British Property Federation for your helpful—and brief—brief on the Bill? Can I challenge you about the demonstrable evidence that supports your assertion? I think you said that the starter homes policy will kill off build to rent. Where is the evidential basis that that will happen? If you have a multi-tenure site in a good location with good transport links and otherwise reasonably good infrastructure, why would investors not wish to invest in long-term residential letting? I do not understand how the introduction of starter homes will drastically affect that or make it unviable as a business proposition.
Ian Fletcher: The build-to-rent sector mainly seeks to build at scale, so it will be building 100-plus units and the investors, who include most of the big pension fund companies and investors from abroad—we represent most of them—are adamant that they will not invest in broken blocks; they want to keep control of their products. Many of them are introducing new concepts to the private rented sector in the UK in terms of branding and so on, and once you lose control of a part of your development you cannot get that back and you do not know where it will go. An individual may buy a starter home and sell it after five years into the buy-to-let market, so you cannot keep control of that development.
Mr Jackson
Q 108 Are you asking us to believe the premise that they are happier with a residential development of, say, 45% pure social rented housing and the other 55% being build to rent?
Ian Fletcher: Their ideal scenario, which is just being implemented as supplementary planning guidance in London, would be that the affordable offer would be discounted market rent. That works well in terms of being managed as a whole.
Mr Jackson
So affordable rent.
Ian Fletcher: Discounted market rent: it is an intermediate rent rather than the lower, social rents.
Mr Jackson
Q 109 What is the quantum difference between that and a starter home, which is a discounted, effectively intermediate property?
Ian Fletcher: It is the issue I iterated, which is the ability to control and manage the thing as a whole.
Mr Jackson
Q 110 What do you mean by “manage”?
Ian Fletcher: If you have a block of flats, that has to be managed on a daily basis. It will have a concierge and the common parts will be kept by the manager of the property. The feel of the property can be managed only as a whole, as the members wish.
Mr Jackson
Q 111 The legislation covers urban extensions and new build in the planning envelope of small towns. It is not just about flats in central London.
Ian Fletcher: Clearly on a large, strategic land site—I can think of a particular member that has two or three such sites in the south-east—having some starter homes in one corner and a build-to-rent development in the other is no problem.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Brandon Lewis)
Q 112 Mr Fletcher, I assume that you are talking about developments such as the multi-family housing we see elsewhere in the world. I understand the point you are making. In that situation, I assume that the developers, knowing that they have to do their bit for the community as negotiated on affordable housing, would look to do what we see elsewhere: if they can make a case for an apartment block, for example, they might provide affordable housing or starter homes on a different site but in that area with the local authority.
Ian Fletcher: Absolutely, Minister. I said in my first remarks, I think, that I was talking specifically about the on-site requirement. I have no qualms about the other part of the Bill, which is about the duty of local authorities to provide starter homes.
Mr Jackson
Q 113 On paragraph 14 of your briefing—I am sure members have copies—about automatic planning permission, you make the case that this should move on from simply residential housing to multi-use sites, including leisure, retail, industrial, etc. How would that work? Surely that would be an overly permissive regime—to have that in the Bill and extend what is essentially a welcome proposal to drive the number of houses up to a free-for-all, having every economic activity on a brownfield site?
Ian Fletcher: That part of our brief is trying to express a concern that the permission that is granted in advance on the brownfield sites will drive a lot of those sites into housing use. That is, therefore, a concern in terms of ensuring that we have a balanced economy. We have evidence that illustrates that about 50%, I think, of local authorities and local plans are out of date with respect to things such as industrial uses. The local authorities that are particularly out of date are some of the places you would most expect to have expansion of industrial use places, such as the Thames valley and the northern powerhouse. We are just expressing a concern that this policy might drive more brownfield land into housing use at the expense of other uses.
Mr Jackson
Q 114 But this Bill addresses those issues in terms of the discretion that the Secretary of State has for intervening directly in adopted development plans.
Ian Fletcher: And we very much support that.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Q 115 Just returning to section 106, at the moment that section makes a very important contribution to delivering social housing for rent, school places, high-quality green space, GP practices and so on. With the starter home obligation, to what extent do you think house builders will still be happy to make those contributions to creating successful communities where you are delivering new homes?
Andrew Whitaker: I think those contributions have to be proportionate to the development and, therefore, excluding an element from the community infrastructure levy does not exclude them from site-specific section 106 requirements. Overall, developers will continue to pay planning obligations towards social infrastructure, even with the starter home obligation. On brownfield sites of around 100% starter homes, I think we then struggle a little to see the overall contribution to the cumulative impact of development, which is of course supposed to be addressed by the community infrastructure levy. That takes some sites out of their fair contribution towards that and we have some concerns about that. The problem is, you have to do something to make those sites viable for residential development with their 20% discount and that is one of the few things you can do to ensure that those sites are still viable.
Ian Fletcher: I am sympathetic to the points that Andrew was making. I would just add that we have a comprehensive spending review coming up, and if those brownfield sites are going to work and are going to be great places to live, there needs to be some way of supporting that social infrastructure. If it is not coming from the developer then it has to come from other sources.
Helen Hayes
Q 116 If I may, I wanted to ask about permission in principle. The Minister came to the Communities and Local Government Committee yesterday and said that his understanding of permission in principle is that it is simply a site that has been agreed by the local authority that will have permission for housing. Could you explain to me, from the industry perspective, what is the value of that? How does it give you any more certainty and any more leverage with your lenders than a site allocation, on the basis of which a local authority could still not turn down an application on a matter of principle without losing an appeal?
Brian Berry: I think it is particularly attractive to small builders, because getting the permission in principle at the beginning gives them the confidence actually to bring the application forward. It also means they are not having to spend large sums of money on providing technical details at the first stage. That, as I understand it in the Bill, is removed into the technical consent part. Turning it into two parts and getting the permission in principle at the beginning will, I think, bring forward more applications from smaller builders, and it does not pose any risk in terms of discussing the merits of the scheme because that will be in the second part. This is a welcome development and very similar to the redline application route endorsed in the Lyons review.
Andrew Whitaker: I would like to share your optimism that an allocation in a local plan would mean that you did not have to argue the principle of development on that site when making a planning application. Unfortunately, I can point you to many, many examples of where the principle of development gets discussed at length even for an allocated site. I think what this will do is ensure that local authorities, when allocating sites, do a lot more due diligence about whether they are committed to bringing that site forward for development. If we never need to make an application for permission in principle, that will be fantastic, because it will mean that local authorities become more committed to the delivery of the sites that are in their local plan.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Q 117 This Bill, taken in the round, is designed to tackle the fundamental problem in the housing market, which is lack of supply. And the lack of supply is partly about who is going to build the houses of the future. I am thinking particularly of SMEs, Mr Berry. SME house builders used to build about 100,000 homes a year in the UK. I think that at the moment they are building about 18,000 homes every year. Is there enough in the Bill to help SME house builders?
Brian Berry: You are absolutely right. The number of house builders has declined rapidly over the last 25 years. In 1988, two thirds of all new homes were built by SMEs; that fell to 30% last year. There is a desperate need to get more SMEs into the market if we are to deliver those homes. The challenge, of course, is that there are barriers to SMEs coming into the market. Those barriers fall outside the scope of this Bill, but access to finance remains a concern for SMEs—62% of our members say it is a barrier to bringing forward developments—so it would be useful if the Government considered some form of help to build, perhaps underwriting homes. That would be very beneficial.
The other key issue that affects the house building sector is the growing skills crisis and how we are to address that, because if we do not have the skilled labour, we are going to have a serious problem. It is already an issue. We know this from our own surveys: 60% of our members are having problems recruiting bricklayers, and 50% are having problems recruiting carpenters. It is right across the board. There are a number of issues that are outside the scope of the Bill, but that are absolutely fundamental to delivering the number of homes required and that we all need to work with Government on.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Q 118 Could I get a clarification from Mr Fletcher? I think you referred to the issue of local authority plans being out of date with regard to industrial use.
Ian Fletcher: That is a recent piece of work by one of the big planning consultants, Turley, which has looked at the evidence base that local authorities are using. More than 50% are pre the introduction of the national planning policy framework. Significant periods of time have passed and significant changes in policy have passed since they put their evidence base together on their requirements for industrial land.
Peter Dowd
Q 119 In relation to brownfield sites, do you have any estimates of the volume of brownfield land that would be viable for housing development?
Brian Berry: I’m afraid we don’t.
Ian Fletcher: You caveated your question with the word “viable”, and I think that that is wise. I have seen estimates that you could build as much as 1 million homes on brownfield sites in the UK, but they have to be viable; they have to be connected. Some brownfield sites actually have very good ecology and should be left as brownfield. That 1 million is hypothetical and it is not necessarily real.
Andrew Whitaker: I would not underestimate how much of that brownfield land is already coming forward for residential development. Over half of the figure of 1 million which is often touted is already within the planning system, and it is already either allocated or being developed for housing. The house building industry does already prioritise brownfield development.
Peter Dowd
Q 120 There is an argument that because local authorities are being pushed in relation to the national policy framework, they are putting sites into the planning framework which are not necessarily viable in relation to brownfield. Is that not the case?
Andrew Whitaker: That is our fear. Encouraging them to maintain a register is certainly a great idea in theory. Being able to pinpoint the land you want to see being brought forward for development is an excellent idea. However, if enough work is not done in terms of viability, then the amount of land which could come forward and which is viable, as Ian said, could be overemphasised or over-egged.
Peter Dowd
Q 121 I have one more question on that. Do you have any idea at all of the cost of the remediation of brownfield sites nationally that you as a developer would not want to pay for, or that developers would not want to pay for?
Andrew Whitaker: No. I think that is a bit like asking us how long a piece of string is. Every single site differs in terms of the amount of money needed to make it viable. That is not just in terms of the actual viability of ensuring the land is developable, but in terms of meeting the landowner’s requirements for the price of the site, meeting the developer’s requirements for the profit element on the site, and meeting the planning obligations on that site to make sure that the infrastructure is provided. That differs on a site by site basis. Over the last few years, where viability has become more of an issue in planning and local plans, we have found that making these decisions on a generic basis invariably does not allow for the massive fluctuation in site-by-site assessment.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Q 122 I would like to continue this line of inquiry in relation to permission in principle and the brownfield register. To get straight to the heart of this, I ask each member of the panel to comment on whether they think that those measures would increase, decrease or have no effect on the number of housing starts we see in our country.
Brian Berry: I think the new consent of permission in principle is a forward step. That will help to bring forward more SME applications. The brownfield register is a positive step, because there are very small parcels of land which our members could build on. Having that transparency will be a help. That would encourage more development.
Chris Philp
Q 123 Okay. So you think it will be a net positive?
Brian Berry: I do.
Ian Fletcher: I think both measures will make a positive contribution. The most advanced register in the UK is the effort of the Mayor of London, and the power in the register is not in the register itself but in the Minister sitting round the table with the public authorities and the advisers to discuss what can be done with this particular land and then getting it into use. A Domesday Book of land in itself is only half of the effort. It is what is done with it that is important.
Chris Philp
Q 124 I am going to come back to that in a moment. Mr Whitaker, do you think that these measures will increase supply, decrease supply, or have no effect?
Andrew Whitaker: They will definitely increase supply, because this is a positive step towards finding the sites that local authorities actually want to see developed. As Mr Berry said, that will make it easier for SMEs, which want to enter the market, because they will know very clearly that they will get planning permission on those sites.
Chris Philp
Q 125 Good. I am delighted that there is unanimous agreement on the panel that these are positive measures that will increase supply. Let me return to the point that Mr Fletcher touched on. In relation to London in particular, the London Land Commission has had power over specifically Government-related land and has had some measure of success, particularly with Greater London Authority land. Perhaps you would comment on whether there is any opportunity to go further in terms of how the state goes about bringing forward its own land—for example, the 6,000 acres owned by Transport for London—and what specific measures you believe might encourage that to happen.
Ian Fletcher: In the case of our sector, some things that get in the way are best value and best consideration rules, which are written for a model of housing that we have had for the past 30 years, which is that you build for sale and then you contribute an element of social housing. When you are doing a build-to-rent development, which is some- thing new to local authorities, they are very cautious about whether they are getting best value or best consideration. That would be a help. I can see the difficult politics but it would be helpful to get a clear set of rules as to how that land commission works, and what public land can be brought in, whether it be from other Government agencies or local authorities. The beauty of the London Land Commission is that it has some very good private sector advisers, who can start to think about what those parcels of land can be best marketed and used for. I would encourage the other regions or localities that set up registers to engage with the private sector early on.
Chris Philp
Q 126 Okay. Moving on, Mr Whitaker, to a remark you made in your summary note. You say that clause 106 will be helpful in that it requires local authorities to make the financial benefit of development proposals clear. Were you commenting generally, or in terms of trying to get the CIL money more clearly allocated to projects that are beneficial to a particular locality? An issue that I have encountered historically is that constituents feel that a large amount of CIL money disappears into the borough’s pocket and does not directly benefit the immediate area of a development. Is that a problem and are there measures in the Bill to help to address that?
Andrew Whitaker: That may well be a problem of CIL, but it is a different issue that is not covered by the Bill. It will be covered elsewhere. We see the idea behind making local authorities be very clear about the financial benefits of developments and about their decisions on those developments as being a much wider benefit to ensure that people start to recognise how much development brings to their area, rather than always seeing development as the downside of development and the effect on their immediate neighbourhood of development where there once was no development. The fact that people will be able to see how much new homes bonus and CIL, and what planning obligations and amount of council tax increases, are brought to their area by these developments will be beneficial in trying to overcome some of the people who are against development.
Chris Philp
Q 127 Good, and that is the purpose of clause 106, is it not?
Andrew Whitaker: It is indeed, yes.
Chris Philp
Q 128 My final question is to Mr Berry. Some smaller developers complain about some onerous aspects of the planning process, not all of which are addressed in the Bill, for example the requirement to do newt and bat studies and all that sort of stuff. How will the Bill help smaller developers? Are there any areas outside the scope of the Bill that may need attention in future? It might be helpful to hear about that.
Brian Berry: One of the issues that came up on Second Reading by the former Housing Minister is the fall in resources in planning authorities and the loss of experienced staff. That is an ongoing concern. Our members have come to the conclusion that they would pay to fast-track and get things done quicker because of the delays that they experience in the planning departments. The complexity and delays in the planning system are always criticised but they have got worse over the past few years. The Bill tries to address that. Therefore, we are very supportive of the provisions. There sometimes is a concern about accountability. Sometimes, small applications are not taken as seriously as larger ones. Therefore, the Bill’s extension of planning performance is a welcome move forward for small applications. Overall, the Bill is a positive move.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q 129 Following on from Mr Philp’s interest in SMEs, presumably the situation facing SME house builders is even worse in a London context than it is nationally. Therefore, would you go into a little more detail about some of the other challenges faced by SME house builders, particularly those wanting to operate in London? With imagination—imaginative drafting, in particular—some of the issues that you have touched on, perhaps regarding access to finance and the skills shortage, might be able to be included in the scope of the Bill through possible amendments.
Brian Berry: As I said, access to finance remains a serious issue, so a help-to-build measure would be very useful in underpinning loans to SMEs. The availability of small sites has been a problem, because local plans have tended to allocate larger parcels, but our members need smaller parcels. The brownfield register of small sites—five units—is a step in the right direction.
The skills thing is actually a much bigger debate about challenging the perception of vocational training and about the university route not always being the best for every child when they could be learning a trade. We have a role within the industry to demonstrate and improve the image of construction, because this serious problem will only get worse.
The other thing is about making better use of existing buildings, 85% of which will still be in use in 2050. The changes to permitted development to bring more residential back into city centres are positive, particularly in creating sustainable communities. That mix of people living and working, for which there is provision in the Bill, creates dynamic cities. There is a lot in the Bill that is positive, but the finance side would be particularly helpful.
Mr Thomas
Q 130 Specifically, would a section 106 requirement on big sites to offer apprenticeships be a helpful requirement for the SME sector? It clearly would not affect SMEs building on smaller sites, but they could benefit from construction apprentices coming through.
Brian Berry: The real solution is a cultural one, so that young people recognise that a career in construction is positive. We have to overcome some of the stereotype thinking. A survey by the Construction Industry Training Board revealed that 35% of careers advisers were advising young children not to go into construction because of the mud and boots image. If that continues, it will be no wonder that the best are not coming into the building industry. Our role is to change the image of the industry. The main challenge is to get more young people and more apprenticeships.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q 131 To follow on from the unanimous verdict that permission in principle would really help to kick off house building, I know from talking to developers and builders in my area that planning is a real stumbling block. With the technical details consent, are you concerned that we are just pushing blockages and delay further down the pipeline? Are you worried that you will get permission in principle but that there will still be a blockage further down the line?
Andrew Whitaker: No, we do not see that as a problem at all. As I said in my earlier response, we see this as bringing valuable focus to local authorities, who may say, “Yes, there is nothing wrong with the principle of development. We have identified this site and always knew that it was going to come forward for development. Let’s bring it forward as quickly as we possibly can.” A lot of what the Bill is trying to do is exactly that. It is trying to draw local authorities’ attention to the fact that they can facilitate more sites coming through the planning system to facilitate greater delivery of housing to alleviate the housing crisis that we find ourselves in. If we are to deliver more houses, it is important that the Bill does that and that local authorities refocus what they are doing.
Brian Berry: I would echo what Mr Whitaker said.
Ian Fletcher: I would echo that, but I would just add that one of the remaining challenges when you get to the technical stages is resource at a local level, which is variable across local authorities in terms of support in the planning process.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Q 132 Do you think that the provisions of part 7 of the Bill, which deals with compulsory purchase orders, will help streamline the compulsory purchase system?
Andrew Whitaker: Again, it is about trying to help local authorities to facilitate the delivery of sites. If they need to use compulsory purchase powers to do that, it is helpful, if only because local authorities will need to reread all the compulsory purchase provisions and may find that they are actually beneficial in bringing forward the sites that they want to bring forward. It is an important part of the Bill.
Ian Fletcher: I would agree with that. We represent mainly very large developers. Often, there will be a particular part on a site that will unlock it using CPO powers, and the improvements that you have made to them in the Bill are welcome.
The Chair
That brings us very neatly to the end of the time allocated. I thank all three witnesses for their evidence, which has been very useful and helpful. I am most grateful to them. I call the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Campbell Robb and Jon Sparkes gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now glad to be able to welcome Shelter and Crisis to the panel. We have a total of half an hour to take evidence from you. Perhaps you could start by introducing yourselves for the record.
Campbell Robb: I am Campbell Robb, the chief executive of Shelter.
Jon Sparkes: I am Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Crisis.
Helen Hayes
Q 133 Both of you, in your written submissions—thank you for them—have emphasised the need to address supply issues in order to address our housing crisis. To what extent do you think that the starter homes proposal will do that?
Campbell Robb: The first thing to say is that the drive towards more building is a welcome one, and the Bill is attempting to do that. Our concern with starter homes is that they will replace, rather than be on top of, existing provision. We are fearful also that the type and the cost will be out of the reach of what would be considered to be average families. The removal from section 106 of the requirement to fund social rented, and the replacement of that with starter homes, is the issue that we would have with that.
Jon Sparkes: I would make a very similar point. The concern for us is what happens to people at the very low end of income, for whom the starter home is a mile away. We think that if starter homes are instead of truly affordable rented homes, we will see an increase in homelessness.
Helen Hayes
Q 134 Who do you think will benefit from starter homes?
Campbell Robb: In the analysis that we did, we were quite generous in the types of deposits people would have and the costs, so we took a reasonable approach to our analysis of what would be available. I am afraid that our analysis showed that in about 60% of the country, even people on middle incomes would be outpriced. For people on what would be the new national living wage introduced by the Chancellor, when that comes in, in 90% or more of the country, starter homes will be unaffordable. We think that a very specific group of people in a very specific, quite high-end income bracket will get them. That is not to say that it is not a good thing, per se, for them to get a leg up and to own their own home, but the problem is with it replacing social rented and genuinely affordable homes.
Helen Hayes
Q 135 You both lead charities that seek to support homeless people. Will the starter homes benefit any of the clients you seek to help week in, week out?
Jon Sparkes: No. The clients we work with—about 8,000 clients a year—are living in shelters or sofa-surfing, and some of them are rough sleeping. There will not be a benefit to them from this. As Campbell said, that does not mean that it is not a good thing for the people it does help, but it will not help the clients we work with.
Campbell Robb: From our analysis, it genuinely will not help most people who are on an average wage. It should be the aspiration, I think, of any home ownership policy to open that up. That is where we see the problems with it. It would not help many of our clients.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Q 136 Mr Sparkes, I am looking at paragraph 14b of your submission, in which you say:
“Outside of the North of England, Starter Homes will be unaffordable to the majority of households on wages below the median”.
What is the north of England, first of all, in geographical terms? How many people comprise the north of England? I am interested in how you came to that.
Jon Sparkes: I have to say, we lifted that item completely from Shelter’s research, so I will pass it to Campbell.
Campbell Robb: I do not know off the top of my head what the north of England is in terms of the analysis, but I will happily send the detailed geography to the Committee. In terms of incomes and numbers of people, we took Government statistics on average wages and national income and used that analysis against what the cost of starter homes would be, on average, what an average deposit would be and what a normal deposit would be. That is the analysis data.
Seema Kennedy
Q 137 I appreciate that you are going to submit it. It seems to me, as somebody who represents a northern constituency, that the north is a term that is sometimes bandied around. Do you accept that it is quite a lot of people?
Campbell Robb: Yes.
Seema Kennedy
Q 138 And comprising a large geographical space, with massive variations between one area and another?
Campbell Robb: Absolutely, but the analysis we did across the whole country was based on national Government statistics on average wages. I am sure we can do a bigger breakdown, if that would be helpful.
Seema Kennedy
Q 139 I would appreciate that. Do you accept, though, that when you say that outside the north of England they will be unaffordable—we do not accept that—therefore they will be affordable in large parts of the north of England?
Campbell Robb: Potentially, yes, because the average income is lower and the cost of housing as we go further is generally cheaper—not always, but consistently; whereas the south-east, as you know, dominated by London, is far more expensive, but there are pockets around the country, in England and in Scotland, where house prices are out of control as well.
Seema Kennedy
Q 140 On that London point, we heard from the Deputy Mayor for housing this morning and he said that first-time buyers’ house prices were £290,000.
Campbell Robb: That sounds about right.
Seema Kennedy
Q 141 You accept that that is right? It is well below the cap.
Campbell Robb: £290,000 is the average. It depends on the type of property. That could be a one-bedroom property.
Seema Kennedy
Q 142 This is for a first-time buyer.
Campbell Robb: Indeed. The mix of starter homes includes family homes as well, so there is a price range. We are not sure yet; we are still waiting to hear what range of types of starter homes will come forward from builders and from the Government, because there will be a range of variations.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Q 143 Mr Robb, may I come back to you on that? I am sure you would not want to leave the Committee with the wrong impression.
Campbell Robb: Absolutely not.
Andrew Griffiths
You talk about pockets of the country where prices would be lower. Are you not actually talking about the vast majority of the country? In the midlands, the north-east, the north-west, there are huge swathes of the country where starter homes at 80% of market value, perhaps coupled with Help to Buy, help with the deposit, are hugely affordable for the vast majority of first-time buyers.
Campbell Robb: As I said, we estimate that 60% would be unaffordable, 40% would be affordable, definitely. It depends, also, on where people want to buy. Not all those areas are where people want to move to jobs. As members of the Committee will know from their own constituencies, it is a challenge for young people to find work. Prices in Birmingham and the west midlands, around those hubs of employment, are going up. So, yes, by our estimate it will be 40% of the country. It is very positive, as I said earlier, for those that can get it. Our point was that, on our analysis, which we are very happy to share and which we continue to look at, on our first look at it, it looked like there are significant parts of the country and certain parts of the population who would not be able to afford it. That does not need to be the intention of the policy, but in terms of the clients we work with and getting a lot of people on to the housing ladder, we felt that this policy could go further than it did.
Andrew Griffiths
Q 144 Can you share some more of the specific evidence that you have? You seem to be talking in generalities, but focused on the south-east. Could you be clearer where those figures are coming from? For instance, I look at my own constituency of Burton upon Trent. You talk about high employment areas; we have record low employment in Burton and a starter home in my constituency, at 20% cheaper than market value, coupled with help with a deposit, would be hugely affordable to people on an average income of £20,000 or £25,000. Can you share with us the evidence, the statistics that you have that point to this not being affordable for the vast majority of people?
Campbell Robb: As I said, when you take into account the population density in the south-east and all around there as against Burton, you get to higher numbers as a natural consequence of people who will not be able to afford it. That is not to say that it is not working and could not work in Burton. I do not dispute that it may be excellent in your constituency to get a certain type of person on average income; that is great.
We looked at this policy nationally and against national statistics. I am happy to share and look at what more we can do to break them down. They are based on Government statistics and analysis. I am happy to share with the Committee and will go away and ensure that we send as much detail as we can back to the Committee.
I do not dispute that in certain areas of the country it will be affordable for some people, but over the whole piece of the national policy, which it is, we were concerned about certain areas—60% of our analysis. I would also have to look at the national living wage, which was the point we were making, because that is another group of people, not on the average wage, to see if this is affordable for them. I absolutely take it that it may be useful for your constituents.
Andrew Griffiths
Q 145 Could you share those numbers, so we can get some further analysis?
Campbell Robb: I am absolutely happy to do that.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 147 We will get more evidence from you and can come back to that. What I have picked up is that you have real concern about whether the starter home scheme will crowd out genuinely affordable housing. What do you think can be done to prevent that from happening?
Jon Sparkes: Clearly, the Bill makes it advantageous to build affordable starter homes as defined. It not being advantageous, leaving local authorities to have the flexibility to have houses for the population that they have, and to make an assessment on the availability of truly affordable social rented housing for the people who need it. The answer to it being crowded out is to not crowd it out, and to leave it for local authorities to decide and be flexible.
Campbell Robb: I would agree with that. Section 106 currently delivers about a third of all genuinely affordable for rent properties in England. Removing that stipulation on local authorities could reduce those numbers and replace them with starter homes. That is the difficulty in that situation. More local flexibility would definitely help us to answer it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 148 Have you thought of any exemptions there might be applied to the policy?
Campbell Robb: More discretion is absolutely key. I suspect, as the Committee has shown, that as starter homes come in, which they obviously will, we need to monitor who is actually getting them. Are they genuinely reaching the people you want them to, so that constituencies do benefit? Is the level of debt being accrued and the ability to repay being positively looked at, to ensure that people genuinely can afford the home and that it is giving them the leg up that they want rather than a burden they do not want? Those two things would certainly be helpful. The point about section 106 and the consideration of how mandatory it is would be a very important thing to look at.
Mr Jackson
Q 149 Without labouring the point, my impression of the map you produced was a line from the Bristol channel to the Wash. I am mindful of the fact that one in three of the Committee are from London, but this analysis is rather centred on London and the south-east. Surely it depends very much on factors such as the differentials between the market prices of homes and affordable homes. My constituency is quite competitive in that respect, not least because until recently Peterborough had the second worst increase in house prices. There are lots of factors.
Would you concede that, in respect of your specific areas of expertise, starter homes have never been designed to tackle the housing difficulties of your client group in particular: very challenged vulnerable younger people from dysfunctional families and so on? Given the totality of the Bill, and the extra funding that would be released from some of its measures, it does not circumscribe the capacity of the local association to provide specialist supported housing for people with mental health problems, extra care for older people or moving-on accommodation for young people. That can still be done, which is obviously something you would welcome.
Jon Sparkes: You are correct, in that it is not a policy which is designed to support people at the lower end. We can argue about the level of discount as much as we like, but it does benefit the people that it is designed to benefit.
While you say that it does not stop anybody from doing anything? I think it is pretty clear that where there is going to be development investment in housing, it will follow this policy. This will give a level of priority and will take away from the incentive and willingness to do precisely those things that you describe.
Mr Jackson
Following on from the points made by Mr Griffiths and Ms Kennedy, is there not an argument that says it would use the market mechanism to potentially dampen down the overheated housing market in the south-east and London, and allocate housing to working people in areas that hitherto have not been viable, such as the east midlands, the north-west or Yorkshire and Humberside? That surely must be a good thing because it will drive economic activity, not least in the construction industry.
Jon Sparkes: Again, where it benefits people, it is absolutely a good thing, but when we are talking about people on minimum wage or on zero-hours contracts—people way below the average earnings that we are talking about—then absolutely it does not benefit them. The trickle-down effect, if ever proven, is just so far away from those people that it does nothing to bring them into the housing market.
Mr Jackson
Q 150 But you would not disagree with the idea that in the areas where economic activity, growth and prosperity are most needed, where hitherto you have had de-industrialisation and a poor housing market—I remember the pathfinders programme and so on—the starter home programme may potentially assist in that regeneration.
Campbell Robb: We were very welcoming of the original proposals around starter homes because the use of brownfield is obviously, as you heard in previous evidence, potentially very positive. There is great potential there for regenerating in different areas. Our concern continues to be that it is a replacement. If it was in addition to, rather than a replacement—which it is—then you could do that. In essence, using brownfield to create homes needs to go hand in hand, as you will well know, with jobs being created. People want to buy in places they can settle, where there are good schools and where they know that they can get reasonably close to their jobs. If that all pans out, then that is very positive for the group of people who benefit from it.
The Chair
Keeping an eye on the clock, may I ask for both questions and answers to be crisp and to the point, please?
Peter Dowd
Q 151 According to my figures, the number of people living in the private rented sector has increased by 2.5 million in the last five years. If only 5% of those people were affected, that would be 125,000 people affected by rogue landlords. Are the penalties for rogue landlords and agents sufficient to protect tenants?
Campbell Robb: First, I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Bill to further strengthen the legislation around the private rental sector. Just before the end of the last Parliament, we had some strong wins in terms of rogue landlords and revenge evictions, and there are more welcome things in the Bill. We would be interested in understanding whether there is more that we could do to prosecute rogue landlords and I think we could have a helpful discussion about that. So I think we could go further; that is what we would like to see and we would be very happy to share with the Committee and others about how we could do that. A relatively small percentage of landlords are rogue—I am conscious of not going on too long, Chair—but the stronger the message that we can send out, the stronger the power that local authorities have, the more we can do on this. But there are some welcome measures in the Bill.
Peter Dowd
Q 152 Do you agree that if only 5% of people in those tenancies were affected by that, that is 125,000 people? That is 125,000 people too many.
Campbell Robb: It is, absolutely, and every day we see people coming into our surgeries and phoning up our helpline who are really at the hands of some very bad behaviour, and we would absolutely support doing more to stop that type of behaviour.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Q 153 To follow on from that, you both give an unequivocal welcome to part 2 of the Bill. Presumably you are also keen that the database is effective. Looking at Criminal Records Bureau checks and their successor, it seems to me that a database mechanism has been as effective in driving up standards. Are you optimistic that it will do the same in this area?
Jon Sparkes: Yes, I think it will. I think the Bill can actually go even further. Certainly, sharing information about banned landlords and banned letting agents is absolutely crucial and will have an impact. You can see landlords going across local authority boundaries. Once a landlord or letting agent is banned, the professionalising of the sector by making sure they undertake accredited training before they are unbanned is important, so there are areas where we would even support amendments that would take it further—all of which is caveated with proper protections for tenants. If you are the tenant of a banned landlord, you need an awful lot of protection, otherwise you just become evicted by default.
Campbell Robb: I agree with all that. I want to put on record that we have one caveat to unequivocal support, which is about the clauses about abandonment. It may not be the time, Chair, but I would like to share that there are potentially some unintended consequences of bringing that forward and of the lack of court oversight or local authority oversight in making sure that the proposals achieve what is wished but that they do not give a licence to some landlords to use them in a way that we would not support. I just want to put that on record.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q 154 On abandonment, is legislation not already available for landlords to reclaim abandoned premises?
Campbell Robb: There is. Under section 21 of the Act.
Teresa Pearce
Q 155 So is this necessary?
Campbell Robb: We do not think it is. We think that landlords already have those powers and that we would not need to do this. If this is to go through, there are significant caveats we would like to add and areas, in terms of security, that we would like to strengthen.
Teresa Pearce
Q 156 On that point, if the clause goes through, do you think it will put additional pressure on local authority housing departments by people appearing evicted without due process?
Campbell Robb: There is a danger that without that due process, certain types of landlords may use this to create evictions. That might happen, yes.
Chris Philp
Q 157 You touched earlier on the question of affordability. Without going again through the comments you made then, do you agree that generally speaking, the best way to address any concerns about affordability is to increase supply and that, if we do increase supply as the Bill aims to, both rents and prices have a chance to just cool down a bit?
Jon Sparkes: I agree, inasmuch as it is about supply of the right kind of houses at the right kind of prices and the right kind of tenures. Simply building houses and diluting the supply of social housing will increase homelessness. So I agree, but it has to be the right kind of supply.
Campbell Robb: I would agree with that.
Chris Philp
Q 158 In the interests of time, I will move on to my second question. In your briefing note, particularly in sections 8 and 6, you draw attention to the disadvantages of renting—for example, you point out that getting kicked out of a private rented house accounts for 29% of homelessness, and you note that 30% of private rented houses do not meet the decent homes standard. Would you therefore agree that—provided people can afford them, of course—moving people away from rented accommodation into homes that they own themselves is a fundamentally good objective?
Jon Sparkes: We are not against the aspiration of home ownership, but we are against taking the aspiration away from those people who cannot own their own home. Renting has to be available. Just because there are flaws in renting does not mean that renting cannot be available, particularly where it is at the right price and the right standard. That is why we are supportive of the clauses around the conduct of landlords and letting agents in the private rented sector.
Campbell Robb: I would agree, and I would add that that needs to be mixed. Social rented has proved a real stepping stone to home ownership for many people in this country, because the low rents have allowed them to save and gather deposits. At the moment in many places—not everywhere, I agree—high rents mean that very few people whom we speak to can afford to save anything towards a deposit. It is in that balance of what you build and where—exactly as Jon said earlier.
Chris Philp
Q 159 That brings me on neatly to my final question. One proposal in the Bill is for social housing tenants, once they reach a certain level of salary at the end of the taper, to move to market rents. That will presumably encourage some people on higher earnings, who had moved into social rented but have progressed in their career, to move out of social rented and into some other tenure, creating space for exactly the kind of vulnerable people you are describing. I presume that therefore you would welcome that clause in the Bill.
Jon Sparkes: The principle that social tenants who can afford to do so should pay more is something that we are not against. There is a detail in there, which is about the onus of evidence. If someone is unable to provide evidence of their income we do not believe that they should be put on to a market rent by default. That will impact on vulnerable people, but the principle of paying more if you can pay more is not something we have a problem with.
Campbell Robb: I agree with that—we are not against the principle of it.
Mr Thomas
Q 160 Given the anticipated rise in population in London over the next decade, do you think this Bill will help us to tackle the housing crisis, or do you think the housing crisis in London will get worse?
Campbell Robb: Some of the policies, as we discussed earlier on, may not have as much impact in London as they will have in other parts of the country, as has been pointed out. Some of the sell-off of high-value council homes, in London in particular, will have a bigger impact in London to pay for the right to buy. Overall, I suspect that London will struggle without further measures to tackle the housing crisis.
Mr Thomas
Q 161 So you do not anticipate that the housing crisis will get worse in London, notwithstanding the various provisions within the Bill?
Campbell Robb: It will be interesting to see whether Help to Buy and right to buy—those types of measures—will generate new development. London needs to build a lot more homes, pretty quickly—up to 50,000 a year. It is hard to see at this stage whether these measures will work. Some of the evidence you are hearing from the builders and developers may help, but it is hard to believe that that is definitely going to happen.
Mr Thomas
Q 162 One last thing: the Bill has not been written with the interests of renters primarily in mind. What other measures to help those in rented accommodation would you like to have seen in a Bill such as this?
Campbell Robb: The one that we would like to see is a move towards longer tenancies. The very short nature of the shorthold tenancy—it has been shortened to six months—is a massive detriment, particularly to families living in the private rented sector, with children in schools who want to be able to settle. Many leases are rolled on, but knowing that every six months you might face moving is a real challenge. We have made proposals about three-year tenancies and even five-year tenancies. We are seeing big institutional investors that offer long-term renting offering longer tenancies, and not just in London. That gives security. We could have seen more on that area, which would have helped.
Jon Sparkes: I agree, but in addition to that, we would like to see as much effort being put into stimulating the supply of suitable and truly affordable rented property as the Bill puts into stimulating the supply of houses to buy.
Mr Thomas
Q 163 How would you do that?
Jon Sparkes: The way the Bill does it is ensuring that there is a priority around affordable houses to buy and that grants are available to make sure they are top of the priority list. Do the same for the others. There are models that show that investment in social housing is beneficial to the public purse over time, so invest in those as well. But it should not be “instead of”—our biggest fear is that affordable houses to buy are instead of truly affordable houses to rent, so do both.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 164 You have both expressed concerns about the sale of high-value homes, but is that not just releasing assets to fund more building of more affordable homes? David Orr of the National Housing Federation said that it will increase new homes in all parts of the market, including the rental market. Is that not easing your concerns?
Jon Sparkes: I do not agree that it will increase the availability—
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 165 Even though he said that it would?
Jon Sparkes: If I could finish my sentence, I do not believe that it will increase the availability of social rented property.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 166 Even though he said that it would, in all parts of the market?
Jon Sparkes: I do not believe it will.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 167 We have heard evidence here today to that effect. One of the largest housing associations in the north say they will quadruple their numbers of properties—of new supply.
Jon Sparkes: There is a disincentive to build new council houses inherent in the Bill. There is a right to purchase social housing, but there is nothing to stimulate the availability of social housing.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 168 David Orr said himself that housing associations do not want to move away from the business of providing houses for those in need—why would they?
Jon Sparkes: I would be very pleased if they do not, but I do not believe there is an incentive here to build social rented properties.
The Chair
With that we come neatly to the end of our session. Before we close, I thank our witnesses for their evidence and for taking questions so gamely, and our Committee for asking questions so sensibly. We move swiftly on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Mark Patchitt, David Montague, Sue Chalkley and Tim Pinder gave evidence.
The Chair
We are looking forward to hearing from this big panel. It will be quite a lengthy session lasting for an hour. Our witnesses are from the Riverside Group, from the London Housing Association, from the Hastoe Group and from Peaks and Plains Housing Trust. Please will you introduce yourselves for the record, starting on my right?
David Montague: David Montague, chief executive L&Q.
Sue Chalkley: Sue Chalkley, chief executive of Hastoe Housing Association.
Tim Pinder: Tim Pinder, chief executive of Peaks and Plains Housing Trust.
Mark Patchitt: Mark Patchitt, director of development and growth for the Riverside Group.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 169 Thank you, Mr Gray. The Government have suggested that the voluntary agreement on the right to buy was necessary to avoid legislation. How voluntary was the voluntary agreement? Why did you decide to accept or reject it and should a voluntary agreement be subject to statutory monitoring?
David Montague: I am on the board of the National Housing Federation. I also chair G15, as well as being chief exec of L&Q. We were concerned at L&Q from the outset that a statutory right to buy would give us less flexibility over the long term, so we were keen to support a voluntary proposal. We believe that it would be better for housing associations in the long term, better for our tenants in the long term, and better for social housing in the long term. We supported it from the outset, as did the vast majority of housing associations. That is not to say that we do not have some concerns. As others have mentioned, we are concerned that it will have a negative impact on supply, particularly in London. Having said that, along with my G15 colleagues, we are determined to ensure that there is a net increase in social housing in London.
Sue Chalkley: We voted no for two reasons. First, the proposal is not adequately rural-proofed. We have quite a few concerns around the impact on rural communities. Secondly, we do not believe the proposal is future-proofed. It is mandatory for us because it will be in the regulatory framework, but it will be voluntary for the Government, because they could change their view as to what proportion of the discount might be paid in years to come. We felt it put us in a very uncertain position. We would rather something was in legislation so that there was certainty about what the deal contained.
Tim Pinder: Our association voted no as well, on the basis that, as a charity, they felt uncomfortable voluntarily giving up their charitable assets. They absolutely respected the fact that the Government had made it clear in their manifesto that they would bring forward legislation. Our board was of the view that it would happily go along with any kind of legislative provisions, but was not comfortable voluntarily giving up its charitable assets.
As the Bill is drafted, we still have concerns about the use of the word “may” in terms of the Secretary of State’s powers for potentially providing grants. The language was very different to a voluntary agreement that we were asked to vote on, which talked about full compensation for the discount at which we would sell our properties. The whole notion of a grant does not strike us as giving the same kind of powerful commitment that we will not be out of pocket. The fact that it says “the Secretary of State may” sounds a rather weaker commitment than we were led to believe the voluntary agreement had struck, which was that we would be, without condition, reimbursed for the discounts that are available under the right to buy.
Mark Patchitt: We voted yes for the voluntary offer—we thought the voluntary offer made was very clear about the conditions, that we would go through with the right to buy and that it is on full compensation. Our board thought long and hard about it and we also asked our residents and tenants to see what they thought of it. We are a charity as well. As long as we can get the one-for-one replacement so that we are able to help just as many customers in the long run, we are in favour of the voluntary deal. It is on those terms that we have set out.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 170 What about the statutory monitoring of this? What do you feel has happened to you, becoming categorised now in the public sector? Are you concerned about it? Do you think that should be addressed?
David Montague: We are satisfied that our regulator will be required to monitor and we think that is an appropriate level of monitoring. As far as reclassification is concerned, naturally we were disappointed that we were reclassified, but we were pleased that the Government came out so swiftly after that announcement to confirm that it would take deregulatory measures to place us firmly back in the private sector. We believe that that is where independent charities belong.
We were also satisfied that, the day after the announcement, the chair of the regulation committee wrote to all of us and confirmed that, until the Government took the action that it had proposed to take, it was business as usual in terms of borrowing and expenditure plans.
Sue Chalkley: We were reassured by messages from the Secretary of State and the regulator but slightly disappointed that this was used as a reason for needing to say yes to the deal, whereas in fact it does not seem to be that much of a big deal after all.
Tim Pinder: There is a bit of an inherent contradiction between the regulator being given the power to enforce, monitor, control a voluntary agreement at the same time as the Government are making the commitment that they want us back in the private sector and to reverse the Office for National Statistics classification. Those two seem at odds to me.
Mr Jones
Q 171 In relation to this point about reclassification, Mr Pinder and Mrs Chalkley, you mentioned that you would rather see the right to buy firmly in legislation and the whole thing legislated for. Do you not think that that would pose a significant risk of the ONS continuing to classify as they have done?
Sue Chalkley: My understanding is that in deciding the ONS takes into account whether there is a certain level of Government control, regulation and legislation, so I am not sure whether it would have made a lot of difference whether it was in one or the other; it is still Government control and that is what they take into account. That is my understanding.
Tim Pinder: As far as we are concerned, just to be clear, we absolutely accept the democratic vote of the sector. Our position was that our board was not comfortable accepting the voluntary deal but we respected that the majority of the sector did and at that point, therefore, we were happy to accept the voluntary deal rather than legislative provision.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 172 Some 1.3 million housing association tenants expect, I think, on the basis of this Bill, the right to acquire or buy their own home. I would assume that you would not be able to cope with that level of take-up; I wondered what level of demand you think you can cope with annually, say next year. Are you concerned that there are not any measures in the Bill to help you to cope with the demand of people accessing that right?
David Montague: Our estimate is that 10% of our tenants will be eligible and will be able to afford the right to buy. That estimate is supported by the National Housing Federation, which also estimates that 35% of housing association tenants in the midlands and the north will be eligible and able to afford the right to buy. We expect our 10% to exercise their right to buy over probably a five- to 10-year period and we think that we can manage that level of demand. The average L&Q tenant has an income of £13,000, so even with a discount of £100,000, the vast majority of L&Q tenants will not be able to exercise their right to buy.
Sue Chalkley: We have some older stock in suburban areas but the vast majority of our schemes are in 250 rural villages. I know that this sounds really counterintuitive but we have had hardly any inquiries—fewer than five—from our tenants. Twice a year I do chief executive’s free-phone day, when people can ring me about anything. On my previous free-phone day in August, I only had one inquiry. I really do not know how you interpret that, but we do not have a sense that we will be overwhelmed.
Tim Pinder: Nor do we. We are a stock transfer housing association, so any tenant that was a tenant of Macclesfield Borough Council in 2006 retained their right to buy when they transferred across to us. Obviously that number has diminished each year as new tenants move in, but we have always managed to cope with the demand from that group. The new tenants who will be entitled to this right to buy do not represent such a significant challenge for us, so we are quite confident. I was interested to read the Minister’s comments about the potential for phasing in right to buy. We would be interested to understand whether that is a geography-based phase-in or whether it is about particular groups of tenants. How would that work? I am not so sure that we need that to manage the demand but gaining an understanding of those proposals would be welcome.
The Chair
The Minister has been called away to a meeting with the Secretary of State but I know that the officials are present and they will no doubt take note of the fact that you would like information, and provide it for you.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 173 Do you think there is a risk, if this is phased in or if you are not able to meet all the demand, that housing association tenants who want to purchase their own homes may feel let down?
Tim Pinder: They may well do. I do not know what lay behind the initiative to think about phasing in. One of the issues must be a concern about whether the amount of high-value properties in the local authority sector, which are designated as funding the discounts to housing associations, will be sufficient to allow the demand that you are identifying may well be out there to be met. For us, one of the issues is that we are aware of a very strong lobby from London-based local authorities to ring-fence any of the proceeds from its high-value properties. If that is successful, it prevents that money from heading north to where we are, where most local authorities have transferred the housing stock. The ability for local authorities in our neck of the woods—the north-west of England—to dispose of high-value stock if it was there is very limited because they are no longer stock-owning local authorities. That is my suggestion for what might lay behind the phasing in.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 174 Just picking up on the logic of what you just said, can I take from that that you think that like-for-like replacements in the local area where the forced sales will happen is unlikely?
Tim Pinder: No, when we say like for like, we are confident that we can replace at least one for one.
Matthew Pennycook
Q 175 With the same 10-year entitled spending?
Tim Pinder: Yes. However, where I take slight issue with the definition of like for like is that the area that we work in has some incredibly high-value properties and high-value areas. I was just looking yesterday at some land in Prestbury, where we have properties that will be attractive under the right-to-buy provisions. We are looking at £1 million-plus per acre. Now, there is no way that we can compete in the market to purchase land and build new in that village. We would be able to replace for every home sold in Prestbury, but it would not necessarily be replaced in Prestbury. That is the disadvantage.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 176 In areas of low-value housing, do you accept that it might not be possible to do a one-for-one replacement in the area because it would cost perhaps two or three times as much to replace the home that has been sold than the value of the home itself?
Mark Patchitt: It is going to be a challenge. We expect the average sale price of our right-to-buy properties to be about £82,000 or £84,000. That is probably less than it will cost to replace it, like for like, with a rented property. On your previous point about like-for-like properties and where you build them, it is important that there is some flexibility about where we build so that we can get the maximum efficiency in how we are building so that we can do the deals on the land now and try to get the land to replace these properties. We will have to look at whether we can replace exactly for all the affordable rented sales, but certainly we would expect to be able to replace affordable accommodation one for one.
Seema Kennedy
Q 177 Mr Patchitt, you said that when your housing association took the decision to vote for the voluntary agreement, you consulted your tenants and your customers.
Mark Patchitt: We did, yes.
Seema Kennedy
Q 178 Could you expand a little on how you did that? Do you think that they were interested in the proposals of the Bill overall and this idea of starter homes and expanding?
Mark Patchitt: We consulted them specifically about the voluntary right-to-buy offer. That was all that we consulted them on. We consulted our board and our residents at the same time. That was on the basis that if they voted no, there would potentially be a statutory right to buy, and if they voted yes that would be in favour of the voluntary right. They saw the benefits of the voluntary deal over a statutory deal in preserving some of the flexibilities that we had hoped for, and it was very much on the basis that they wanted one-to-one replacement. They did not want to see a net loss of affordable homes in Riverside, and they thought that was the best way of achieving that.
Seema Kennedy
Q 179 Can I ask the other panellists whether they went through a similar process? I am sure that you did on your boards, but was there any of that sort of consultation with the actual people living in the homes?
Tim Pinder: We did not, no.
Sue Chalkley: No, we did not.
David Montague: Nor did we. We consulted our board, which includes residents, and we have a resident board.
Seema Kennedy
Q 180 You have representatives on the board. Mr Pinder, you are based in Macclesfield, and you have cited the example of Wilmslow. Where else do you have homes?
Tim Pinder: We have homes in some very affluent parts of the borough, in places such as Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Knutsford and Bollington. I think that is interesting because quite often the housing debate is characterised by a kind of north-south divide, which is far too crude.
Seema Kennedy
Q 181 That is why I asked, because I know the area well. You gave the example of Wilmslow for a family on £40,000. How far would that go? Would you get a house in Warrington or in Macclesfield itself?
Tim Pinder: Macclesfield is lower value than those areas, and even within some of those towns with a reputation for being incredibly affluent, there are lower value properties and lower value areas. It is quite a complex mix.
Seema Kennedy
Q 182 Would you accept that the example that you gave of a family spending 56% of their income is an outlier?
Tim Pinder: I would not say that it is an outlier. There are more properties in that field than there are lower value ones. I would say that that is more typical than not.
Seema Kennedy
Q 183 Perhaps that is because of that stock transfer from Macclesfield Borough Council, but surely in the rest of Cheshire there are definite examples where this sort of percentage would not be paid.
Tim Pinder: Absolutely. I would agree with that.
Helen Hayes
Q 184 I wanted to ask your views on the pay-to-stay measures in the Bill. I would be interested in your views on what you think the impact of pay-to-stay will be on your organisation, administratively and in terms of your capacity, on your tenants and your relationship with them, and also on the wider communities that you manage as housing associations.
David Montague: I will start by saying that we welcome any flexibility on the way that we set our rents. As charities, we will always use that flexibility carefully and prudently. We would prefer to see that flexibility extended across all of our stock, particularly given that we are not sure what will happen to rents in five years’ time. We think that the best people to set rents are the boards of charitable housing associations. We broadly welcome any flexibility that we are given.
On this specific measure, we think that pay-to-stay, for those who can afford to, will equal right to buy. It will encourage people to exercise their right to buy. They will have a choice of either seeing their rent doubled or accepting a discount of up to £100,000 to buy their home. It is a big incentive to buy their home. The difficulty is that if someone is living in a one-bedroom flat in Westminster and they cannot exercise their right to buy, then they could be stuck. That is why we welcome the flexibility that we are being offered through the voluntary deal, which will mean that the discount is portable —people can take it to a more affordable area. We are concerned about the administrative complexity of pay-to-stay. It is going to be a bit of a burden, and we are not yet convinced that the income we will receive will outweigh the cost of collection. It will require co-operation between us and statutory agencies in a way that has not happened before.
We would like to see some of the detail as well. We are not sure whether the same rules apply to a single person on £40,000 as to a couple on £40,000. There is a danger if it does that we could be drawing more people into the benefit system as a result of this policy.
Sue Chalkley: If it was a simple system to administer, we think that pay-to-stay might help to offset some of the rent reductions that we are facing. However, there are rural considerations with this initiative as well, in that many of the schemes that we have built for rural communities have been built with an undertaking that we will hold them as affordable housing in perpetuity. This could trump that deal with the rural community and cause a lack of confidence going forward, so that is a concern.
The other issue from the point of view of a rural community is that many families have seasonal part-time work and they have a portfolio of jobs, so it will be potentially quite complex to decide what the income is and how the rent is calculated on that. On top of that, there is plenty of evidence to show that living costs in rural communities are between 10% and 20% higher than they are in urban communities. Should the taper be in some way tapered to reflect the difference between rural and urban communities? We really just call for this to be fully rural-proofed.
Tim Pinder: We welcome pay-to-stay. I said before that our association had taken its view on right to buy because of its charitable status. On the same basis, pay-to-stay makes sense to us as a charity because to maximise our charitable assets, they should be going to the people in greatest need. We actually welcome it as a principle. I think, again, there is a bit of a potential conflict here with the Government’s intention to have us reclassified as private bodies, because they are talking about a legislative provision rather than a voluntary arrangement.
Some of our concerns are around the proposed level. For us, it is £30,000 outside London. From April 2015, a couple on the living wage would be at that £30,000 mark, so in our view £30,000 does not feel like the right level to reflect a high income household. Some of the details around how this would work in practice also give us some concern. If you are £1 above the £30,000 limit, does that immediately mean that you will move to market rent? If so, you are suddenly faced with an extra £3,000 rent per annum, which seems to fly in the face of the whole concept of “work must pay” and people bettering themselves in a way that does not have a financial disincentive. We very much welcome the principle. We would very much like, perhaps through the National Housing Federation, to work with the Department for Communities and Local Government to look at how that would pan out in practice.
Mr Jackson
Q 185 First of all, Mr Pinder, I think you are slightly gilding the lily in quoting Prestbury, because Prestbury is probably in the top 3% in the north-west, if not in England, as a super-output area for wealth. You could easily have said Widnes, Warrington, Winsford, Crewe, Chester or various other places. It illustrates the point that Ms Kennedy was making. There are obviously social and demographic variations even within one region.
Can I just address the issue of pay-to-stay? Because we ran out of time, we were not really able to challenge David Orr to the extent that we would have liked. The evidence that was given earlier seemed to suggest that housing associations were not expeditiously collecting data on the household income of their tenants. Is it not incumbent on you to have been doing that from day one? You are trying to allocate very scarce public housing resources. Why is it only now that you are saying, “We are not going to have the capacity,” or, “It is too bureaucratic to collect data on the income of our tenants”? You should have been doing that some time ago.
Tim Pinder: We certainly do for new tenants. The point you are rightly making is that, at the point at which we allocate a new property, to ensure that we are discharging our charitable responsibilities appropriately, we absolutely do check. In our case, having inherited 5,000 tenants from a local authority, if they are still our tenants now we have no record of their earnings.
We are in a very strange situation where we have really no right to know the earnings of existing tenants, but we have for new tenants. From the Information Commissioner point of view we should restrict the amount of information we hold on tenants to that which we ought to collect.
Mr Jackson
Q 186 But the legislation says that they have a retained right to buy. Am I correct in saying that?
Tim Pinder: Yes.
Mr Jackson
Q 187 Surely their financial bona fides are pertinent to an application for retained right to buy, if they wish to purchase a property?
Tim Pinder: What we find in practice is that a huge proportion of right-to-buy applications are funded by family members rather than by the applicant or tenant themselves. I am not so sure that helps us in the processing of right to buy. That remains a big challenge for us. If we do not have those data, how do we get them? There has been talk that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will make those data available to us. How easily accessible they are is another matter.
Mr Jackson
Q 188 So the Government are doing you a favour in prompting you to collect information better, to use the resources at your disposal better. Would you agree?
Tim Pinder: I am not so sure it helps, no.
Peter Dowd
Q 189 With your permission, Mr Gray, I will use Mr Patchitt as a case study, to tease out an issue. Many of the houses under your control, Mr Patchitt, are in my constituency. I have some figures here. You say that you have 53,000 homes. Is that correct?
Mark Patchitt: Yes.
Peter Dowd
Q 190 So, on the figures we were given before, around 10% of them were sold. Is that a fair figure? Let us take that as an example. That is 5,300 at £85,000 a home, as you were saying before, which is £450 million, if my maths are correct. The full receipt to replace is not received because of the difference between the replacement cost of £100,000 as opposed to £85,000. The cost to replace at £100,000 leaves you short of about £20 million, does it not, if you were replacing like for like?
Mark Patchitt: It could do. There are different ways we can procure homes. This is an important point. Currently, we are able to acquire some homes under section 106 agreements with developers. That discounts the cost of rented homes, so we are able to get properties purchased from developers at around £80,000 in the north at some point, some time. That would help offset some of that, but to build new would definitely cost more. We are looking for a balance and we may have to consider some affordable home ownership to replace that.
Peter Dowd
Q 191 Would you agree that, if you had the absolute guarantee, or at least the guarantee in the Bill, that you were going to get, not just pound for pound, but perhaps £1 for £1.10, to rebuild all the houses that have been sold—
Mark Patchitt: It is a national offer. Nationally, as a sector, we say we will replace one for one. It may be that in some parts it is a bit more of a challenge for somebody to replace exactly one for one, but somebody might be able to replace a little bit more than one for one, and as a sector we will do that. We have signed up to the fact that roughly one-for-one replacement should be possible, if we get full compensation for the sale of the property.
Peter Dowd
Q 192 Can I pursue this further? You are a charity and are concerned with your charitable status and the people you deal with. You are not interested about what is happening in London or Manchester, or wherever it might be. The bottom line for you as a charity is whether you have the guarantee that you will, pound for pound, or £1 for £1.10, get that money back. Have the Government given you that guarantee in the Bill?
Mark Patchitt: The voluntary offer that we have signed up to—we have said why we would sign up to it—is that we get full compensation for the sale of our properties. If that falls, I do not see how we could provide the one for one, and our board would probably take a different view.
Peter Dowd
Q 193 That brings me to the question: are you confident that the Bill—not what Ministers say might be there—guarantees housing associations the full value of homes sold through the right to buy?
Mark Patchitt: The Bill mentions grants, and I have mentioned full compensation for the right to buy. Whether that is in the Bill or outside it, and how it is legislated for, I leave for others to decide.
The Chair
Before I call the next speaker, it may help the Committee to know that we expect a Division in the Chamber at 4.40 pm. Therefore I intend, with the Committee’s agreement, to wind up this session at 3.55 pm in order to get the next panel in before the Division. That gives another 10 minutes in this session.
Mr Bacon
Q 194 We heard from the previous witnesses from Shelter and Crisis that there is “nothing in the Bill for social renters”. As people running housing associations, do you think there is anything in the Bill for social renters?
David Montague: The overall picture is very positive and is backed up by statements from the Minister, from the Secretary of State and from the Prime Minister. A million homes over five years—we are totally behind that. We are very pleased to see efforts to release brownfield land and for the planning process to support the provision of new housing, but I am concerned that there is not enough in there for social rented housing.
Sue Chalkley: I entirely agree. We will do our best to continue providing affordable, rural, rented housing, and we support the general thrust of the Bill to deliver more homes of any tenure, but the Bill itself does not really incentivise more social rented housing.
Tim Pinder: I largely agree with that. I was struck by some work that the Halifax did recently on people who are renting, which found that 15% of renters across all sectors have no aspiration for home ownership. So, welcome though the Bill’s provisions are for starter homes, there is that chunk of people for whom I do not think there are provisions in the Bill to assist. However, I think that our ability to re-provide, probably, more than one to one and right to buy, means that, in that respect, there is something for social renters.
Mark Patchitt: I agree with the previous comments.
Mr Bacon
Q 195 I am specifically thinking of vulnerable groups, such as the disabled, the unemployed, those on benefits and homeless ex-servicemen and women. The Community Self Build Agency seems to think that the approach of self-build can do something for all those groups. On the front page of its website it says:
“I was encouraged by the local council to apply for the CSBA Scheme, I rang them and said; ‘I am disabled, unemployed, on benefits and I know nothing of building.’ They said; ‘You fit all the criteria!’ I have never looked back.”
None of you, in your answers, mentioned self-build, although that is chapter 2 of the Bill. What do you think self-build might do to help you? This refers to different kinds of tenure, including affordable rent and shared ownership, both of which the Community Self Build Agency does. What do you think that you, as housing associations, might do in this space?
David Montague: Self-build has a really important role to play, but will it deliver a million homes over five years? I fear that it will not. Will it deliver 50,000 homes a year in London? I do not think it will. Everybody has a role to play, but there is so much more than self-build that needs to be offered as a solution.
Sue Chalkley: I absolutely think that the solution is lots of little schemes. I really like the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015. We held a landowners conference in Newmarket three weeks ago and we have been overwhelmed by landowners expressing an interest in doing self-build. We are following up a number of leads at the moment, so we feel really positive about that. It is a good, local solution that will be something that the local community will own and be proud of.
Tim Pinder: We have had discussions with the local authority about making provision on our sites—as we develop them for either shared ownership or for rent—available for self-builders as well, so we are happy to accommodate them as part of the mix, as Sue suggests.
Mark Patchitt: I think it can be complementary. It is a very intensive support system to help self-building get off the ground—it takes a lot of human resources and time—and we have preferred to concentrate our efforts on commercial building, affordable building and other off-site manufacturing ways of trying to add quantity to the whole output.
Mr Bacon
Q 196 Is there anything in law which prevents housing associations—which, after all, are actors who play in the space at scale—from promoting mutual housing co-operatives and taking part in them?
David Montague: I doubt whether there is.
Sue Chalkley: I do not think so.
Mr Thomas
Q 199 Mr Montague, can you flesh out a point you made in your opening remarks about your concerns that the Bill will not add to supply in London?
David Montague: We believe there is a lot that is positive in the Bill, as I mentioned earlier—brownfield sites and so on—which will help us to deliver more homes in London. The tides that we are swimming against in London are the loss of local authority stock that will be difficult to replace and the effect of the starter home initiative, which is still difficult to determine. Our fear, as others have suggested, is that it will replace social housing.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 200 Can I follow on from that? The G15 are quite strongly against this forced sale of council housing. Do you share the concern that the Government should not be seeking to support the right to buy through the forced sale of council housing?
David Montague: We are concerned that it will lead to the loss of affordable social rented housing in London. We would have preferred to have seen the voluntary right to buy funded through other means—means which we suggested. Given that we are where we are, we are determined to work with local authorities to protect against the loss of social housing in London.
Maria Caulfield
Q 201 I am interested in your opinion on the concern about matching the loss of right to buy one to one. Have you looked at other methods, other than traditional house building methods? My local authority only this year has gone down the modular housing route, which has enabled 100% affordable rented housing to be turned round that meets all building regs, along with the “Code for Sustainable Housing” and the Lifetime Homes standards, and the houses are three and four-bedroomed detached houses for low-paid workers. The cost to build each house is less than £30,000, so you could easily replace two for one, for example. Have you looked at those models?
Mark Patchitt: We have been working with housing associations in the north-west collectively to look into modular off-site and to see whether we can collectively bring the purchasing power that would make a difference. We first thought that we might be able to get discounts. That wasn’t the case, but we could help the industry with modular. Our experience to date—we have done a number of pilots—is that the actual cost of modular today is slightly more expensive than traditional. However, we are still pursuing it, because we believe that in two, three or four years’ time it will be as competitive, if not more competitive, as you see labour and material costs go up.
Maria Caulfield
Q 202 I am slightly concerned about that. With the modules that we have been using, we can build a three or four-bedroomed house for less than £30,000 in 18 weeks. They are quick and cheap to build. I am surprised if you have not looked at that route at all.
Mark Patchitt: A lot of the modular solutions have very good headlines—I don’t wish to dispute the figures—but we found £60,000 per house didn’t include the garden, the fencing or the roofing in one instance. We have looked into a number of schemes, and I believe it is a very good point. We should be looking at off-site and modular housing. I really believe it has its place going forward if we are going to create the million homes that we are aspiring to.
Andrew Griffiths
Q 203 All of the panel have discussed the £30,000 as the limit for pay to stay. The Government are consulting on a paper or a gradual system that could even have regional variations. Could the panel tell us if you have contributed to that consultation and, if so, what have you said?
Tim Pinder: We have, yes. Some of our suggestions are around perhaps starting a taper at a rent that is earning 25% above the existing £30,000 threshold, so there is clear blue water between them—perhaps as a taper similar to the rent convergence that housing associations and local authorities adhered to over recent years, which means that we set a rent as a target that we want to get to over, say, a five-year period and the rent increases by £5 per year until we get there. Those are some of our ideas.
Mark Patchitt: We have contributed. In terms of the taper, we are concerned that £30,000 is on the low side. The difference for some of our residents, for example in Bromley, between what they would have to pay as a market rent and what they currently pay today would be an enormous jump. That £30,000 threshold in 2020 is two people on minimum wage.
Andrew Griffiths
Q 204 Have you made a specific suggestion on what the taper should be?
Mark Patchitt: We have not. We would prefer it to be a higher threshold.
Sue Chalkley: We have not yet. I would not imagine that we would make a specific suggestion about the taper. We will probably be majoring on the impact on rural communities.
David Montague: We will make a submission. We believe in a higher threshold. More importantly, we believe that pay to stay should be voluntary and it should be part of the general flexibility for housing associations to set their rates.
The Chair
We thank the panel very much indeed for their evidence. I hope you do not mind me curtailing it slightly but the business of the House demands that we should do so. Thank you for coming in. Will the next panel take their places with no undue delay?
Examination of witnesses
Carolyn Uphill, David Smith and David Cox gave evidence.
The Chair
I would like to welcome representatives from the National Landlords Association, the Residential Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Letting Agents. Before I ask you to introduce yourselves, I remind you that we expect a Division in the Chamber at 4.40 pm—40 minutes from now—and therefore we will curtail the session at that stage. Could you identify yourselves for the official record?
David Cox: I am David Cox from the Association of Residential Letting Agents.
David Smith: I am Dr David Smith from the Residential Landlords Association.
Carolyn Uphill: I am Carolyn Uphill from the National Landlords Association.
Teresa Pearce
Q 205 Everyone agrees that rogue landlords are a very bad thing and something must be done. In the Bill, if certain criminal activities are undertaken by landlords, they can be subject to a banning order. Do you think that will result in improving standards? Do you think that a banning order is the right action?
David Smith: We support banning orders if they are used effectively to eliminate criminal landlords. One of the problems that we have identified at the moment is that enforcement action is not taken often and robustly enough by local authorities. There is a tension between banning orders and the new power in the Bill to create civil penalties, because if a local authority chooses to use the civil penalty route, it cannot then use a banning order because they are only possible when they prosecute somebody. What we are very keen to see is an amendment to the Bill so that local authorities do not continually issue civil penalties against landlords who should be prosecuted, issued with a banning order and removed from the sector.
Teresa Pearce
Q 206 Just on that point about civil penalties, do you think they are high enough?
David Smith: I think the size of the penalty is fine. What I do not want to see, or would be very unhappy to see, would be very serious matters being dealt with by a civil penalty, whereas the most serious matters should always go to court.
David Cox: We have to factor in that sales agents can already be banned, and have been able to be since the Estate Agents Act 1979 came into force. We would like to see the lettings sector brought under the Estate Agents Act. We support the concept of banning orders, but against individual agents, as in the Estate Agents Act, rather than agencies. One thing we would not want to see is an individual agent—maybe a new recruit—who has done something very stupid which could shut down an entire agency, particularly as some of the large corporate agencies employ tens of thousands of people, so we think that banning orders should be based on individual agents.
More importantly, however, at the moment the sales banning list is held by Powys County Council, by the national trading standards estate agency team, which bans sales agents, but at the moment still allows them to practise as letting agents. When these banning orders come into force we need to make sure there is joined-up work between whoever is the body that will be dealing with the banning orders for letting agents and landlords, and Powys’ national trading standards, so that we do not end up with a situation where somebody can be banned as a sales agent but still practise as a letting agent, or banned as a letting agent and still practise as a sales agent. We suggest either that the two come together as one overarching body, or that they speak very closely and regularly, to make sure that we do not end up with unintended consequences.
Carolyn Uphill: The National Landlords Association is broadly supportive of these measures and the intention of the Bill, because part of our value statement is that bad practice and criminality should be driven out of the sector. As a landlord, it is not good for my business to have criminals operating within the sector. Whether banning orders on their own would drive the criminals out is a question of them actually being used. That relates, as my colleague said, to the use of fines and civil penalties. We need enforcement action to drive these people out of the sector. In principle it is an idea we would support, but in practice we would welcome consultation with the stakeholders, to make sure we get it right and there is a good right of appeal, so that the right people are driven out of the sector. As landlords, it would do us all a great deal of good to drive the criminals away.
Teresa Pearce
Q 207 So without further investment in local authorities, do you have confidence that local authorities could actually undertake this work?
Carolyn Uphill: If local authorities had the ability to keep the proceeds of any fines or civil penalties they levy, we would fully support that; we would like to see them ring-fenced to be used on housing matters, so that there is a real incentive to make the polluter pay—make those causing the problems pay for them. Perhaps they should be able to refund or rescind some of the licensing schemes, which are just a cost on the good landlords. Get the polluter to pay and use that money to improve standards. Then there would be a strong incentive to do it. The evidence is that in the last six years, 2,006 landlords were prosecuted under the Housing Act, whereas every week we are fining 3,000 people for not having a TV licence. Somewhere, we need to put more emphasis on this.
Stephen Hammond
Q 208 Ms Uphill, in your written submission you raised concerns about privacy. First, can you set out in depth what you think those are and, secondly, following on from your last answer, do you think that local authorities have the ability to construct the database so that privacy is protected?
Carolyn Uphill: Are we talking about the database for rogue landlords?
Stephen Hammond
Correct.
Carolyn Uphill: I would hope that it can be constructed so that privacy is protected—it is not the sort of information we would like to see left on a train—as long as it is properly protected and controlled and used for the right purpose. It should not be a fishing exercise for matters outside housing issues, but if properly used to stop the sort of people being involved in the industry who do not do me as a landlord any service, then it should be feasible.
Stephen Hammond
Q 209 Mr Smith, are you confident that the local authorities will be able to maintain an accurate database?
David Smith: We are concerned about accuracy. The difficulty will be that a local authority, having gone through potentially quite a bruising prosecution process, is then going to have to repeat the process to achieve a banning order and face further appeals. We are concerned that local authorities might get a prosecution, be satisfied and stop there without carrying through a full ban to remove the landlord.
Stephen Hammond
Q 210 But the obligations placed on them in the Bill to do so should be strong enough, should they not?
David Smith: Yes, they should, but the other side of that is the secondary database of merely bad landlords, as opposed to banned landlords. The problem will be moving people effectively from that database so that it stays a live database. Up to now that has been a mixed process.
Stephen Hammond
Q 211 I notice from your written evidence that you think the Bill will provide a good opportunity to support and encourage longer tenancies in the sector, which presumably you would all welcome. Can you explain why you think that?
David Smith: Our members—not all our members but a significant percentage—are quite happy to grant longer tenancies. The fire, in a sense, is targeted in the wrong direction from our perspective. The two biggest barriers to longer tenancies are mortgage companies, which tend to put restrictions on mortgages—we feel the Treasury is in an historically strong position to do something about that if it wanted to—and long leases of flats, particularly in the capital where there are a great many more blocks of flats. Ironically, many of those blocks are in the hands of local authorities or housing associations but almost all of them include a restriction on leases of more than 12 months.
It is an area that is very difficult for a landlord with 1,000 leases to fix themselves, because they would have to go and re-sign a couple of thousand leases. So we think it is an area uniquely suited to legislative intervention, by simply acting to replace such a clause with one that allows a tenancy of up to three years, which is already more than the vast majority of tenants have indicated that they would like.
Stephen Hammond
Q 212 Mr Cox, if we turn to part 3 of the Bill on recovery of abandoned properties, do you think that the provisions of the Bill will remedy the shortcomings of the current system?
David Cox: Yes, I think that they will. It is quite a complicated process that has been set out in the Bill. The issue of abandonment is not a massive problem—the problem is that, when it does happen, it causes a huge amount of confusion, concern and, effectively, a great loss of income. It takes up a huge length of time. We also have to factor in the deposit, which is not mentioned in the Bill, particularly if the custodial scheme, DPS, is used. It is difficult for the landlord to regain the deposit when it is in the custodial scheme because it requires both sides to agree to the deductions from the deposit, if there are any. If one party has disappeared and abandoned the property, there is no way of getting that party’s agreement. The deposit therefore sits in the deposit scheme.
Generally, the process is welcome. It is following the same path as under the Renting Homes (Wales) Bill in Wales and the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill in Scotland. We would not recommend any changes at all, merely the inclusion of a clause on deposit protection.
Carolyn Uphill: We have long campaigned for this and we are very supportive of it. As Mr Cox said, it is not a very common problem but when it happens it is very costly and problematic for the landlord; plus there is a property tied up with nobody in it that somebody else could be occupying. It is only right for this legislation to speed up the process. There is no need to be worried about some of the scaremongering that this will cause a disservice to tenants, because the clause requires there to already be rent arrears of at least eight weeks, usually two months, and for the landlord to have made great attempts to contact the tenant. If a tenant is paying the rent and is contactable there will be no problem at all, but if neither of those is happening the landlord would, in any case, be seeking possession. It simply speeds it up and puts a home back on the market for somebody else.
David Cox: May I make one final point? Looking at clause 52 on reinstatement, it talks about an application being made up to six months after. This is exactly the same as its respective clause under the Renting Homes (Wales) Bill. Six months will allow a tenant to leave a property, take up an entirely new six-month tenancy and then come back to the property and demand it back. We would ask for that period to be shortened, so that it prevents that prime example. Someone may be living up in the midlands and has a six-month contract to work down in London, they come to London, do their contract then go back and demand their property back, which they will be able to do under these clauses. We would ask that it be shortened—I would suggest to two months, because they have at that point probably already abandoned the property for four or five months. Six months will allow, potentially, a rather perverse situation and unintended consequences. We would ask that, under clause 52(3), it be reduced to two months instead of six.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 213 Clause 30 states that the Secretary of State will give all local authorities access to the database. Can you say why my constituent should not have access to that database, so that they know who is subject to a banning order? In clause 31, on use of information in the database, would it not be helpful if local authorities were able to use that information to help protect tenants and future tenants?
David Cox: I can talk for letting agents. From their point of view, yes, I agree entirely. For agents it should be an open database. The sales agents database is an open database and has been for many years. Therefore we would like to see both the rogue agent database and the banned agent database being public. First, this would mean that tenants and landlords would be able to see whether their agent had been banned or blacklisted. Secondly, and I would say more importantly, it would mean that agents can also check the database when they are looking to recruit new staff. What has concerned agents since the discussion paper was launched earlier in the year is what would happen if they employ someone who has been banned. They cannot check the database under the proposals and under the Bill, and therefore they will have no idea. If it then subsequently comes out, it would damage their reputation through no fault of their own and with no ability to actually check.
David Smith: We haven’t made any particular points on this issue. We have no particular issue with the database being available to tenants to check, save that we need to make sure that it does not involve accidental scapegoating of people with similar names, which has been a historic problem with other types of database. In fact, I was watching a programme yesterday that said that 12 people have been attacked recently because they look a bit like Maxine Carr. We would like to avoid a situation where a landlord with a similar name to somebody who is on the database was then told by tenants that they were not acceptable to rent from. There needs to be enough information to ensure that does not happen.
Carolyn Uphill: I think that we would probably agree with that. In principle, there does not seem to be any obvious reason why it should not be more widely accessible, other than whether it could lead to this sort of confusion or misunderstanding. I understand that a banning order might not be forever if circumstances change, and so it precludes any rehabilitation of a landlord. Surely the objective of this is to get standards to improve, so it would need to be very carefully thought out before it was made publicly available, and all the information would first have to be absolutely cast-iron correct. We are cautious about it, but we would not necessarily argue against it.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q 214 But with some safeguards, you think that it could be made accessible to the public? Would its secrecy not be a huge disincentive to the whole system, because only local authorities would have access to it?
Carolyn Uphill: I think that we need to reflect on that and respond in more detail.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 215 Mr Cox, you referred to the banning orders operating at a company level rather than an individual level. You want them to operate at a company level.
David Cox: No, we want them to operate at an individual level, which is the proposal in the Bill. This was not the proposal in the discussion paper earlier in the year. There is one reference in the Bill to a body corporate, but I am not quite sure where it comes from and where it ties in to all the other clauses. We certainly think that it should be at the level of the individual agent. Where it is offices of a company that have caused a problem, then again we could still ban the agent, not the agency. If you ban David Cox Lettings, for example, there is nothing stopping the company directors of David Cox lettings from setting it up again as David Cox Lettings and Property Management Ltd, at which point the agency has been banned but the agents are still trading. They could also go and work for another company. That is why we believe that it should be at the level of the individual agent, which it is in the Bill.
Kevin Hollinrake
Q 216 What further provisions, on top of this, would you like to see in terms of control over the quality of both lettings agents and landlords?
David Cox: This comes back to what we put in our manifesto earlier in the year for the general election. We argued that this Government should take a two-pronged attack. First, we would like to see much greater regulation and much more appropriate regulation of the lettings and management industry, something akin to the London Mayor’s London rental standard. Boris has created an appropriate model of regulation of the sector, which utilises the existing skills and infrastructure set up by the professional bodies and therefore will not cost the public purse huge sums of money to create a regulator. In fact, the London rental standard is very similar to the way that the Bar is regulated and has been regulated for many hundreds of years.
We would argue that that is an appropriate form of regulation going forward, and would very strongly urge that that sort of regulation goes into the sector, particularly around qualifications for agents and client money protection. If the Committee takes nothing further from this, I would strongly advocate—I think everyone would—for all letting agents to have client money protection. We hear far too often of agents running away with millions of pounds of other people’s money. Client money protection would offer landlords and tenants the ability to get their money back.
The other side is enforcement, which is very much contained within the Bill. We very much welcome the requirements of the Bill. Enforcement has been derisory over the past few years. The number of prosecutions is low and the actual awards made are awful and effectively nothing more than a cost of doing business for a lot of these criminal agents.
We want to see local authorities being adequately resourced. At this time, that money cannot come from the central Government fund, which is why I agree entirely with Carolyn that local authorities need to be able to keep the fines, rather than them going back to the Consolidated Fund. Local authorities, particularly trading standards and environmental health, are departments that are revenue drains on local authority resources. If they get to keep the fines and the fines are ring-fenced for further housing enforcement activity, that will start making the environmental health and trading standards departments revenue generators for local authorities, instead of revenue drains.
Just to give you one example, if I may, one of my members in the east of England went down their high street when the Consumer Rights Act 2015 came into force with the fees elements. Of 23 agents, 19 were not displaying the necessary fees. At a £5,000 fixed penalty notice, that is £195,000 in on-the-spot fines that could be levied with very little work by a trading standards officer. If they had not got the fees on their website, which they probably had not, that was another £195,000. If local authorities were enforcing that, they could make hundreds of thousands of pounds for their department and start ridding the industry of the people we do not want in it.
Mr Thomas
Q 217 I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to pick up on the question that Mr Hollinrake was asking about client money protection. Mr Cox, can you flesh out the detail and the type of amendment that you would want to see that would offer that? Similarly, Mr Cox and Ms Uphill, do you agree with Mr Smith on the potential benefit of three-year tenancies and on a provision for that being included within the Bill?
David Cox: If I can deal with the client money protection issue first, client money protection is at the moment primarily provided by the professional bodies. All our licensed ARLA members must have client money protection, so that in the event that any one of them goes bust or misappropriates the funds—it has happened 12 times in our 34 years—we will cover the moneys up to certain caps.
There are providers out there that offer client money protection for agencies through the open market, but client money protection means two things. First, it is an insurance premium, so that in the event of an agency going bust or misappropriating funds, clients—both landlords and tenants—get their money back. Secondly, and more importantly for us, it means that agencies have to have their client accounts audited, so that you know whether something is going wrong. We audit every single one of our member firms’ client accounts, and we require that in order for them to join the professional body.
In terms of an amendment, I am afraid I do not have the specific wording here today, but I can provide the Committee with a set of words. We provided a set of words for the Consumer Rights Bill last year, and that was supported by more than 20 organisations, including landlord associations, letting bodies, consumer groups and Shelter, Generation Rent and Crisis. It is an issue that has unanimous support among everyone involved in the housing sector. The Consumer Rights Bill started moving us in the right direction, with firms having to display whether they have client money protection, but we estimate that on average on any given day—my members alone account for about 60% of the market—firms will hold just under £3 billion of other people’s money. That is protected for our members, but what about the other 40% that is not protected?
On the three-year tenancy question, three-year tenancies can work. I do not think they should be mandated because there are a lot of situations where people do not want a three-year tenancy. In my previous answer I talked about somebody who may be coming to London or one of the other big cities on a short-term contract. The other prime example is a student. When they have been in halls for one year and have only two years left of their undergraduate course, do they want to sign a three-year tenancy when they do not know what they will be doing at the end of their third year? So we would suggest that the current tenancy regime works.
According to our latest survey of our members, the average tenancy is now 20 months, and we have to remember that, according to the Government’s statistics—I think it was the last survey of English housing—well over 90% of tenancies actually end at the request of the tenant, not the landlord, so removing that element of flexibility could do more to harm those that probably want it than actually help.
Carolyn Uphill: As the clients, when we are talking about client money protection by our landlord members, we would of course support client money protection because it is only right that the money should be ring-fenced within agencies. I am sure David will supply you with a suitable form of words.
As for three-year tenancies, the English housing survey of 2013-14 evidenced that the average tenancy was three and a half years, so tenancies are not as short as some people imagine. Many, many landlords are more than happy for tenants to either be given as long a tenancy as the mortgage provider allows or roll on to a longer tenancy, because what landlords want is good long-term reliable tenants without the costs associated with churn. But if that were to be imposed as a minimum, it would seriously damage the availability of accommodation for those who need it on a much more flexible basis.
David mentioned students. I am a student landlord. It would tie me in knots when my students decide to stay on in Manchester as young professionals and say, “Can we stay on for a year because we don’t know where our career is taking us?” so I end up with a mixed house. Any imposition of a period beyond the 12 months that, in that particular case, suits the academic year would cause me as a landlord to consider, “Can I stay in this business?” There are lots of other landlords who are letting because they are away for 12 months and various other factors. There really should be flexibility in the market. There are tenants who want flexibility and there are plenty of landlords willing and happy to give longer tenancies to those who want them.
So we support the principle of longer-term tenancies being available if the mortgage provisions can stop that being constrained, but not as an imposed three-year or any other fixed minimum.
David Smith: I was not in any way suggesting that three-year tenancies should be mandated. All I am talking about doing is removing barriers. I should also say that the statistics are very difficult to interpret, because longer tenancies are more common outside London and the south-east. As soon as you drive into London and the south-east, it is not so much that tenants do not stay for two or three years, but they are forced to sign a series of 12-month tenancies. There are a range of reasons for that. At the risk of incurring David’s wrath, I will point out that one of the reasons for that in London is that letting agents encourage a series of 12-month tenancies to secure their fee structure. That also, in our experience, is one of the things that most actively drives rent increases, particularly in the capital, and we feel that if tenants were able to sign two-year tenancies, and those barriers to two-year tenancies were removed at the front end, the pressure to drive that rent up during the course of the tenancy on each renewal would be reduced.
Brandon Lewis
Q 218 On that point, on the issue around tenancies, when we look at what is happening elsewhere around the world, many places have a much larger and more advanced rental market than we do and still have one-year tenancies. Would you agree that one of the differences seems to be that we have a buy-to-let-led system—I think the colloquial phrase is “mama and papa” landlords who own a small number of properties, about 91% of the market—and the biggest risk to a tenancy is that property being sold to an owner-occupier, whereas in other models, such as multi-family housing, if the property gets sold, the invoice from the managing company might change from Greystar to Amlin or somebody else, but the property tenure remains the same and the tenancy issue is of a different nature. That leads back to one of our earlier evidence sessions, when somebody made the point about how more institutional money with a more professional rented sector changes the dynamic around the tenancy lengths, anyway.
David Smith: I am not sure I would agree with that. The statistics already show that the majority of tenancies end at tenants’ requests, not because the landlord wants to sell. Increasingly, the sector’s structure, even among smaller landlords, is changing. Landlords are often now increasingly selling with tenants in place to other landlords. Some of this is the buy-to-let sector in England and Wales growing up and perhaps becoming more like some of the buy-to-let sector abroad. Our view remains that one of the reasons that we tend to have many 12-month looped tenancies is that it has grown up that way through influences from the opposite side of the equation, from mortgage company pressure, from long lease pressure and from lettings agency pressure. At the moment, landlords are very linked to six-month or 12-month block tenancies. There is very little other discussion about term in the market. If we can break out of that cycle, we feel that would do a lot to change the dynamic.
David Cox: I would agree with that, and at the same time with what the Minister said about looking at other countries. We hear a lot that we should look to Germany and France and their tenancy models. However, in relation to our tenancy model, that is comparing apples with pears. We have to factor in that in places such as Germany, they have indefinite tenancies but it is the tenant’s responsibility to maintain the property during those tenancies, and many do not come with kitchens and bathrooms. Here, the obligation is entirely on us as the landlords to maintain the properties and the goods inside the properties, whereas in Germany and France it is the tenant’s responsibility. We also have to factor in that they have a much more mature rental market. They have many more institutional investors. In Germany and France, the vast majority of the private rented stock is owned by institutional companies, whereas ours is owned predominantly by the “mama and papa” landlord.
It is also still a relatively new market. Looking back 100 years ago, 90% of the UK’s stock was in the private rented sector. By the time we had regulatory liberalisation under the Housing Act 1988, that had shrunk to less than 7% of the sector. It has only grown back to the size that it is today with that regulatory liberalisation, particularly the ability to use section 21 of the Housing Act, coupled in 1996 with the introduction of the buy-to-let mortgage, which provided a financing vehicle to allow people to start investing in property in the UK.
We need much more investment in property. There is a chronic housing shortage in the UK at the moment. The Government estimate that for every house built, two new households are created, therefore the level of housebuilding is not at a sustainable level. The only way we are going to get rents under control, get house prices under control, particularly in places like London, is by a massive house building programme.
The Chair
We have 10 minutes left, so we will have to be quite swift.
Carolyn Uphill: If I may just add to that, I think there is a place for institutional investment but we are not like Germany, as David says; we are an entrepreneurial buy-to-let sector. We have lots of small landlords, but that does not mean either that they should not be professional, which is the purpose and objective of the Bill, or that they are not in it for the long term. I have certainly invested in my portfolio as a pension plan. Many, many landlords want a longer-term income and therefore longer-term stable tenancies.
Helen Hayes
Q 219 Sticking with this issue of forms of tenancy, in one of the boroughs that I represent, 40% of residents are now living in the private rented sector. You are right to say that many of those landlords are happy for tenancies to roll on, but a lot of those tenants feel that they are very much at the mercy of landlords and relying on the good will of landlords to let those tenancies roll on. Many of those households are families with children. They have no prospect, in the short to medium term, of getting into the housing market and purchasing a home of their own. There is a shortage of social rented housing. They want to know that they can send their children to the same school for the duration, that they can settle in their communities and play a full role in community life.
I would not suggest that long-term tenancies should be mandated, but would you not agree that now is the time for further diversity of options in private sector tenancies, so that where it suits the landlord and where there is a need in terms of tenants, those tenants can have more security of tenure for the longer term?
David Smith: Yes, absolutely. We accept that point. We agree with that point. We have tried to educate our members about longer tenancies but I cannot educate my members to do something that they know they cannot do.
Helen Hayes
Q 220 Do you have any idea why the Government are not incorporating such a measure into the Bill?
David Smith: I am thinking they will.
David Cox: I think that something we have to factor in as well is the legislative regime versus actual market practice. For a landlord or a letting agent—I slightly disagree with your earlier point, David—we want longer-term tenancies, for the simple reason that that is the most efficient way of generating rent and fee income. A tenant who stays for a long time, is keeping the property in a good condition and is paying the rent on a monthly basis, or however often they pay it, is a tenant that you want to keep for as long as possible. That is why, when they have such a tenant and a renewal is coming up, the vast majority of landlords and agents will not increase the rent because they want the tenant to stay for as long as possible. Therefore, yes, the legal framework is a tenancy of a minimum of six months, but as long as both parties are content and are complying with their requirements, a tenancy can go on for as long as possible.
If I may just slightly disagree with your earlier point, David, agents will also want longer-term tenancies, because they take their fee on the initial tenancy. If the tenancy is renewed for a further 12 months, their fee usually halves or goes down more than that. Therefore, if it is a three-year tenancy, at an initial fee of 8% that then goes down to 4% if the tenant renews, they will be getting that 8% for the three years of the initial tenancy, not just the first six months. It is, therefore, in all parties’ best interests to have longer-term tenancies, but can we legislate where there is not the market demand? If the market demand was there, agents and landlords would be providing longer tenancies, but at the moment the market demand just does not exist.
Carolyn Uphill: I think we are all agreed that landlords are interested in providing longer tenancies, but it has to work. I do not have them with me, but we have some statistics from the tenant panel research we have done that show that the vast majority of tenants do not ask for a longer tenancy but, equally, that when tenants had asked for a longer tenancy a good percentage of the landlords had agreed to it. Very few landlords had refused them. So that is not the case in the majority of cases. I know that we always have a minority of problem landlords, which is what the rogue database is about, but the majority of landlords can be very accommodating, where it suits them. But landlords want to feel supported as well—not got at.
One point I would like to make is that although we support the legislation in its general principle, we are concerned about the secondary legislation and the guidance yet to be published. What landlords need to know is what is happening and when, so that they can plan towards that. We, as professional associations, want to help them and to give them information. Much as we want to work, and hopefully will continue to work, very well with DCLG, we would appreciate a little more notice of legislation.
Mr Jackson
Q 221 Going back to Mr Cox, I think we could spend all day discussing residential estate investment trusts. We will not do that, but I am sure that the Treasury has heard your comments. On the database, would you say that clauses 23, 24, 30 and 31 would be useful, in that as they are prescriptive in giving the powers to collate the data they will eventually drive out rogue landlords and, in particular, improve enforcement in the short term, which is an issue you have raised? Enforcement levels are poor.
David Cox: We can hope, and we have seen in the sales sector, that the banning orders have been effective. There is not a huge number on the list, and when it was given to Powys Council it bid £170,000, I think, to try to regulate the entire sales industry in the UK. That is not really feasible, but it is certainly doing the best it can. Hopefully, a banning order list will provide more clarity and certainty, particularly for tenants and landlords when they are considering which letting agent they should go with—if they are using one. It will mean that, to a large extent, local authorities will know who the people are and where they are, and they will be able to keep tabs on them. We want to ensure that the list is public so that agents are aware, when they look to recruit and to expand into new areas, of who to employ and who not to.
Mr Jackson
Q 222 If they give their correct names, which anecdotally is an issue.
My second and final point is that you have obviously read the whole Bill. Some evidence was given to us earlier by the British Property Federation about the build to rent fund, and about the fact that institutional investors, for some reason that was not clear to me—perhaps I am a bit obtuse—are not interested in putting their money into build to rent when there are starter homes on the large-scale site, whether they be flats or houses. Are you in a position to make a value judgment about that assertion?
David Cox: I am afraid I have not heard any evidence to that effect. At the moment, although there are several in the pipeline, only one build to rent scheme is functioning in the UK: the old Olympic park, which is now Get Living London. It works very well, and it has three-year tenancies as the standard, but it has caused problems for people trying to exit the tenancy, potentially to buy a property of their own or move overseas.
We want to see more institutional investment. Going back to the housing shortage, the large pension funds and other financial investment vehicles have the ability and resources to build the housing we need. They are much more likely to be at the more professional end of the sector. All of Get Living London’s staff are fully qualified through the only regulated qualifications in the sector. Therefore, they have the desire and the reputation. Large companies cannot have their brands tarnished by poor property management. Therefore, they will be at the more professional end of the sector. They give tenants higher-quality properties and higher-quality service. We want to see much more of that.
David Smith: We have actually made proposals to the Treasury to try to get smaller landlords to be more interested in a “build to rent to sell” model. We are effectively trying to move shared ownership from just the social sector into the private sector. We have suggested that the Treasury could expand the Help to Buy scheme to tenants who wish to buy their own homes, and possibly offer a capital gains tax reduction to landlords who reinvest that money in a new property. We are trying to kick-start a new concept of private landlords seeking to buy property to rent it to tenants, with the aim of selling it to those tenants and then buying other new property in a continuous cycle.
Our view is that it is important to do everything. So many homes are required that simply throwing all our eggs into one particular sector is not going to work. We almost have to take a scattergun approach—although that is an unfashionable thing to do—and promote as many possible ideas as we can, provided they do not cost a vast sum of money, to get as many properties as possible. Once we have tried a lot of things, we can start to core it down to the ones that are the most effective.
Peter Dowd
Q 223 I suppose the point about regulation relates to rogue landlords. As a health and care professional, I pay an annual fee for my regulation, and if I practise inappropriately I am challenged. Is there any reason why that ought not to happen in relation to landlords, for example, with application to rogue landlords?
David Cox: Absolutely not. We have been campaigning for it for 20 years, and we are the closest there is to a regulatory body in the lettings industry. We do our best to regulate our members, and we would like to see a statutory footing for that. We are, of course, talking about people’s homes. For landlords, it is probably the largest investment they will make, beyond the house in which they live.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Cox. Thank you to our three witnesses.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Julian Smith.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 11 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
British Council
(8 years, 11 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
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the British Council.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. As co-chair, with Lord Bach, of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council, I am pleased to have the opportunity for this debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his efforts not only in securing the debate, but in supporting the APPG and the British Council as a whole.
In its founding articles, the British Council was charged with the mission,
“to make the life and thought of the British people more widely known abroad; and to promote a mutual interchange of ‘knowledge and ideas’ with other peoples.”
The phrasing of those aims seems all the more relevant today as the idea of mutual interchange is the crux of the opportunities and the challenges thrown up by globalisation.
The British Council’s work is sometimes seen as divided between English teaching and furthering British interests and influence, but the transmission of our language is in itself an exercise in extending our influence. Of course, George Steiner said that
“when a language dies, a way of understanding the world dies with it”.
Therefore, the work of nearly 9,000 British Council staff—most of them teachers—sprinkled around the globe in conveying our language should be recognised as being of enormous objective value. A language both shapes and reflects a world view, so at a time when both the Alliance Française and the Goethe-Institut have been expanded, it is vital that the huge contribution made by our British Council’s education work is properly appreciated and valued. The British Council’s educational reach is truly staggering and has a projected income of more than £800 million. However, though those educational services might be profitable, they are not only financially driven.
I hesitate to mention opinion polls, because hon. Members will have spotted one or two recent unreliable examples, but research by Ipsos MORI has shown that participation in educational or cultural relations with the UK vastly increases trust in the country and its people. In fact, participants in the British Council’s active citizens programme in Pakistan, in which more than 40,000 people have taken part, said that their perceived trust in the UK increased by a quarter—in so far as such things can be measured. Those same figures show that such increased confidence and trust is not extended to the British Government—sad though that might be—but is centred quite rightly on our people and our culture. That is why the British Council is so ideally equipped to enhance our standing abroad.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
On that point, does my hon. Friend agree not only that the British Council is a great institution with a great history, but that it makes a valuable contribution to our country’s soft power capability? In fact, Joseph Nye cites the founding of the British Council in the 1930s as the originator of the concept of soft power. Does he agree that funding cuts by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office mean that there is a greater commercial burden on the British Council that risks eroding its credibility and integrity as it tries to become more commercial to make up for those cuts? Does he also agree that those cuts—I include the BBC World Service—are false economies, because money spent on our soft power capability can save on conflict and greater cost further down the line?
David Warburton
My hon. Friend reads my mind—obviously he has been looking ahead to what I am about to say. I entirely agree with all those points. Although soft power is a nebulous concept that is perhaps a little overused, I will touch on it shortly. It is crucial that the British Council’s budget is protected in the best possible way and that it does not become a commercial organisation.
I recently had the privilege of chairing an event in Parliament as part of the British Council’s Young Arab Voices programme. I am confident in saying that all the parliamentarians present were enormously impressed by those young people’s articulacy and breadth of knowledge. That programme instils and distils the idea that conflict resolution and decision making should and can be achieved through argument and reason rather than by force. Therefore, by creating alternative pathways for young people, by offering a platform and a voice for young Muslims and Arab leaders, for example, and by changing lives and life chances through sport and a variety of cultural activities, the British Council provides a special, and arguably unique, way to address our security and stability.
I mentioned mutual interchange of ideas, which is not only vital, but something that the British Council is ideally placed and equipped to take on in the UK’s interests. Perhaps soft power, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), might be considered a bit of a tired novelty, but it is particularly relevant to the debate. I am sure that all hon. Members were delighted by the result of the Soft Power 30 in which Joseph Nye ranked the UK as wielding more of that intangible but critical quality than any other nation on Earth. That is a tribute to the splendid vibrancy of British culture and to those who, like the British Council, work to share the benefits of that culture as widely as possible.
Hon. Members will recall how Nikola Tesla spoke of the ways in which science can annihilate distance. As the world becomes increasingly globalised, that idea possibly terrifies some, but it inspires others to forge links with people and communities whose concerns in the past may have been rather distant from their own.
In reality, few agencies or organisations are better placed or have the reputation or cultural memory to take on the task of forging such links in the interests of British culture and our long-term security. For example, a society that precludes half its population—women and girls—from accessing education or the wider economy is only half an economy. Therefore, with many western and British values perhaps facing something of an ideological challenge, the British Council’s work in providing education for 90,000 refugees in Lebanon, its progressive focus on the role of women and girls in transforming the societies of north Africa and its role in training Iraqi teachers, reaching more than 100,000 children, show how it can change the nebulous currency of soft power into solid, tangible results.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the British Council’s humanitarian work. Does he agree that that is particularly valuable in North Korea, where the English-teaching programme, which will reach about 400 teachers and 200 students this year, is one of the only ways in which there is meaningful contact with the outside world for many people in that repressed country? Should we not ensure that that work continues?
David Warburton
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; she makes a good point. By connecting with those countries and offering education and skills for growth through arts, culture, social enterprise and investment, the British Council is able to tease out prosperity and tap vast reservoirs of human potential. All that benefits not only the emerging economies, but the UK’s long-term national interest.
We all appreciate the imperatives of the financial situation that the country faces and the obvious need for a hard look at areas of Government spending, so it is hugely important to put the British Council’s work in its true—it is often hidden—perspective. It provides positive pathways for young people, giving them a stake in society, as we heard in the discussion at the Young Arab Voices event. It strengthens institutions, supports economic and social development, develops creativity and experience of the arts, builds relationships with the UK and enhances our influence and reputation. As I have said, its work increases trust in the UK and, whether face-to-face, or through exhibitions, digital communities, broadcasting or publication, it reaches some 600 million people. In total, the council represents outstanding value for money, and all its work will surely be recognised when decisions are taken on the next financial settlement.
Around two thirds of the British Council’s FCO funding forms part of the ring-fenced official development assistance budget, but the remaining third may well face a squeeze. It is therefore imperative that the ODA portion is structured in a way that compensates for any shortfall if we are to maintain the council’s successful record. As we approach the spending decisions to be taken over the coming weeks, I hope we will see undertakings to that end.
Finally, I must mention that, in the triennial review last year, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to cultural diplomacy, saying that the British Council’s
“strong brand, well established networks and committed staff”
meant it was uniquely well fitted to continue as
“the main official UK body for cultural diplomacy.”
All of us here today will be conscious of the three tenets of the British Council: security, prosperity and influence. By seeing those as working together, the full range of benefits that flow to the UK from the British Council’s work and the exceptional value that it provides globally become clear.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this important debate.
I must declare an interest. I worked for many years at the British Council, with overseas postings in Brussels, St Petersburg and Sierra Leone. I will always remember my time at the council fondly and with a sense of pride. In Brussels, I saw how British skills and know-how could be deployed to support the transition of the former eastern bloc countries to democracy and the market economy, through the European Commission’s aid programmes. In St Petersburg, I was proud to be the director of an operation offering young Russians the opportunity to learn English and engage in a range of cultural and educational projects. In Sierra Leone, I was honoured to be a part of the huge impact of the council’s work in building the capacity of that country’s Government. It is for those reasons and more that I am such a firm believer in the organisation we are discussing today.
As hon. Members will know, the British Council is the world’s outstanding example of a successful soft power institution. It is the model that all other countries try to emulate when developing their soft power networks. It is respected, professional and diversified and we are fortunate to have such a positive face to present to the world. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has already mentioned, the council was founded to create
“a friendly knowledge and understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world”
and has been promoting the values of fairness, democracy, tolerance and dialogue across the world for decades. But the magic of the British Council is that it does not promote those values by way of megaphones or propaganda; rather, it operates through the mediums of exchange and long-term relationship building.
The council understands that communication at its best will be a two-way conversation between the UK and the rest of the world, with each side listening to and learning from the other. It is founded on the principle that the Brits do not have all the answers. It is a vehicle for building trust through honest and open dialogue, as opposed to banging the drum for Britain, which can be so counterproductive. At a time when we are more interconnected as a planet than ever before and trust is a rare commodity, the long-term trust and confidence-building work of the British Council has never been more important; its values are the ones we require if we are to minimise culture clash and the violence that can often result from it.
Through the British Council, we engage civil society in countries where the Governments are not always our closest allies. We propagate a love for our art and music around the world. We can build grassroots understanding of democratic practices, harness the power of sport to inspire and engage young people from all over the world, and promote ourselves as a top-rung tourist destination and trading partner. Through the council, we ensure that the propaganda our enemies disseminate about us is dismantled. Why then is the council facing such huge cuts, when we can all agree that its work is more important than ever?
This year, the council’s FCO grant was increased by £10 million, to reflect its effectiveness in delivering ODA.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the issue of spending and ODA, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British Council’s valuable work is put in jeopardy by a reduction of more than 50%, looking back just five years, in terms of ODA spend and that that needs to be examined very closely in the forthcoming review?
Stephen Kinnock
I do. ODA has been given as a demonstration of the effectiveness of the council’s work in least developed countries. The major challenge the council faces is the reduction in the FCO grant, which has been eroded constantly over the years. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned, the fundamental problem is that that increases the council’s reliance on commercially generated funding. We all acknowledge and welcome the council’s ability to raise that type of funding, but the reduction in grant funding reduces its flexibility to operate wherever it needs to in this rapidly changing world. I absolutely agree that the reduction in the grant is having a negative impact on the council’s ability to deliver across the board.
Mr Baron
In addition, is not there another concern about the decrease in FCO funding? It will not simply be a case of having to make up the lost income—and with regard to commercial activities, that can be many times the factor of the income required, as a turnover of £100 million may just about produce a profit of £10 million, and the reduction from the FCO grant would be £50 million over five years. As the British Council becomes more commercial to make up the lost revenue, its integrity and credibility could also be threatened. Does the hon. Gentleman consider that a risk as well?
Stephen Kinnock
I do. Also, as I will go on to argue later, the council’s English language teaching and exam work is important, makes a big impact and is very lucrative, but it tends to be for the elites in the societies where the council is operating. It is the high end of English language learning and people pay top dollar for it. If we are saying that it is important that we engage with the disaffected, disfranchised youths who are potentially going to become a security risk for us, it is arguable that that section of society will not be able to pay for those English language courses. Looking at the council’s strategic objectives and values, it is important that its reach is wide and that it goes into sections of society that its English language teaching and exams administration simply cannot reach.
The grant represents just 16% of the British Council’s funding. The rest is earned, as we have been discussing, and those earnings are projected to increase. Despite that good news, all is not financially rosy at the council. The FCO grant was reduced to £154 million in 2014-15, down from £201 million in 2009-10, so despite the extra £10 million in ODA, cuts to projects are having to be made. The choice for the council is stark: either a managed decline in its scale and reach, or growing its self-generated income to continue its work. The council has been forced to choose the latter, but should it have to and do we want it to?
Of course, it is truly commendable that the council’s English teaching and exam management can generate enough income from those who can afford to pay to fund projects aimed at those who cannot. Work done administering exams, managing international contracts and fostering corporate partnerships is important, but the more money that is raised from commercial sources, the more the British Council’s core purpose becomes divorced from its soft power potential. My concern is also that language teaching and exams are expensive, and so tend to benefit elites. Grant-funded activity is far more likely to have a wider reach.
We must recognise that, if the British Council is to remain an important wing of British diplomacy, public funding must remain an important element of its financial base. That is crucial for accountability and flexibility, and to supporting the council’s activities in fragile, unstable states, where it is harder for the council to raise the private funds to enable it to build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with future leaders. It is an important fact that one in five world leaders studied in the UK; we are talking about a brand that we can, and do, export, but without public funding, it stops being linked to Britain as a country and becomes just another product.
ODA money is specifically for British Council work in areas that are of key interest from a security and stability perspective. Those areas are current flashpoints, and the money is crucially needed. In Tunisia, for example, a fledgling democracy is trying to embody all the original hopes of the Arab spring, but more of the foreign jihadists in Iraq and Syria originate there than in any other country. The British Council runs debating clubs across Tunisia—a programme that it wants to grow tenfold and that successfully engages young people at risk of radicalisation. For Tunisia, whose economy relies so much on tourism, the good publicity afforded by successful British Council projects feeds into confidence that the country can move on and rebuild after recent horrors.
ODA funding also goes towards co-operation work with countries such as China and India, where engaging with societies that are growing increasingly prosperous is an investment in our future.
The debate is about how best to build trust between Britain and the rest of the world, and nobody does that better than the British Council. More ODA money would maintain its public funding and consolidate its position as a respected arm of British diplomacy. The Government’s spending review is coming up, and my colleagues and I urge the Minister to communicate that request in the strongest terms to the Chancellor.
During his Grant Park acceptance speech in 2008, Barack Obama famously stated that the true strength of a nation is demonstrated
“not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals”.
I urge the Minister to take note and to ensure that the outstanding nature of the work done by the British Council is adequately reflected in the comprehensive spending review.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). At a time when we are seeing an awful lot of hard power on display in the middle east, it is excellent that we are having this debate about the role and virtue of soft power. As he said, soft power often lasts longer.
I pay tribute to the staff of the British Council. Before I entered this place, I was a practising historian, and I would sell my wares around the world. When I met British Council staff, whether in Dubai, Macedonia or Singapore, they were, to a man and a woman, incredibly professional and committed. They were great public servants, and they presented the best of British, often in quite constrained circumstances.
Those people did not necessarily have easy relationships with our embassies. There were sometimes tensions between the inevitable creativity and dissent that the British Council rightly sought to generate—in a helpful manner—and the sometimes narrow policy constraints of Her Majesty’s Government. Where embassies and the British Council had good working relationships, they could achieve a great deal, but where the embassy—not in a controlling manner—did not regard the British Council as part of a partnership for Britain, not nearly as much was achieved as we might have hoped.
In the past 10 to 15 years, the British Council has been a really successful part of a post-imperial, post-colonial reimagining of the meaning of Great Britain. It is hard to overplay that work, particularly in parts of the world where we have a colonial past. The British Council’s work in shaping the reputation, image and meaning of modern Britain for new audiences has been quite profound. Nowhere is that truer than in our relationships with India, as we will see next week when we welcome India’s Prime Minister to the UK.
Tristram Hunt
Things happen so fast these days. We are all looking forward to the remarkable events that will take place in Wembley, and I hope the Minister will be assisting with them. We have a very complicated and long relationship with India, and although many young Indians have a relative lack of interest in the colonial past, they have a great interest in, and passion for, Britain and the meaning of Britain. The British Council has helped to shape some of the debate on that.
Colleagues have rightly made the case for funding and support for the British Council. Its work is profound and important. When I visited its offices, however, I got a sense that the demands of English language teaching and the business model that that involves sometimes overwhelmed the broader functions of those offices. Clearly, we need those offices to be income generators, but we should not lose sight of the British Council’s broader functions and purpose.
I would be delighted to see more money going to the British Council and a return to its previous funding. I have no problem with more of those resources coming from the Department for International Development. It is no secret in Whitehall that DFID cannot get the stuff out of the door quick enough, although it does not always go in the most effective directions. The British Council, however, is incredibly effective.
Stephen Kinnock
As my hon. Friend will know, one of the council’s important functions is to manage programmes such as Erasmus, as well as English language teaching assistants going out to other countries, particularly those in the European Union. Does he agree that Britain’s membership of the European Union is an important aspect of the backdrop to the British Council’s work in demonstrating that the United Kingdom is an engaged international partner that, in particular, gives opportunities to young people in other European countries?
Tristram Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a sense, the British Council serves two purposes: promoting an understanding of modern Britain in modern Europe; and providing young people with extraordinary opportunities to learn other languages on the European continent and to see themselves as part of a broader European culture. It is one of the sadnesses of recent years that we have seen the decline of linguistic abilities in our schools, and the British Council is working to counter that.
There are broader trends that pose a risk to the British Council’s work. First, as my hon. Friend said, we have a great tradition of world-class universities in this country and an extraordinary history of people from around the world coming here to take part in higher education. It is crazy that we include those people in the migration figures. That is an example of the dark hand of the Home Office holding Britain back from achieving what it needs and wants to do. We should welcome those young people, who will build up relationships with the British Council and build cultural relationships in the future.
Britain’s cultural footprint is something that we all celebrate. A very good series by Dominic Sandbrook about Britain’s modern cultural power is on the television at the moment. I am afraid that the Government’s education reforms are undermining that. Yesterday I was at a very good school: Burntwood school in south London, which won the Stirling prize for architecture. I was told that as a result of reforms, it is beginning to strip away art, music, drama and photography, so a different Department is progressively undermining the things that we celebrate as elements of Britain’s reach in the world. If a debate such as this happens in 20 or 30 years, will Members be celebrating British cultural achievements to the same extent and will they be able to celebrate British cultural reach in relation to young people’s opportunities in state as well as private education? If we are to feed the British Council and support its work in the future, we should not turn our eyes from our education system.
I am taking part in the debate to support the work of the British Council and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. He has put his neck on the line, and his future career will depend on achieving real-terms increases to the British Council’s budget—we will watch with interest how he achieves that. As ever, I am sure that he will have the full backing of the Labour party.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I was not going to speak in the debate, but given that there is a little time available, I shall contribute briefly—I am grateful for the opportunity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this important debate, which is timely, given the advent of the spending review at the end of the month.
I think that all those who have spoken in the debate accept that the British Council is a valuable institution. It does great and sterling work in encouraging co-operation and improving communication, and it makes a great contribution to Britain’s soft power capability. I mentioned earlier that Joseph Nye cited the British Council as the original forerunner of the concept of soft power when it was formed in 1934. The concept has moved on, obviously, and we now talk about smart power as well as soft power, but it is important to bring the discussion back to soft power. Although the term is somewhat abused, the concept is perhaps more relevant today, in this uncertain world, than it has been for a long time. Joseph Nye defined it as
“the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment”.
We are not alone in recognising the importance of soft power. Many other countries, including some—without wishing to name names—whose credibility is far less than ours in this context, if only because they are not democracies, are realising that soft power is an increasingly important part of an effective, full-spectrum response to the threats that they face. We would do well to learn from that in the UK. We have been through a decade, if not 12 years, when we have seen examples of hard power not providing the solutions that the Government hoped for, including our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan post-2006, when we allowed the mission to morph into one of nation building, and Libya. Another is our positioning on Syria, where initially the objective was to support the rebels, although we have now realised that that is where the greater threat lies, so we have rightly turned on them—or elements of them, such as ISIL, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda.
We should realise by now that hard power solutions are not always what we hope they will be. That should remind us of the importance of soft power in this increasingly complex and uncertain world, yet we are cutting funding to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is in turn cutting funding for its various activities, including its support of the British Council. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may disagree with me about one or two aspects of our hard power interventions, but I think that he and I can agree—he may not be able to do so publicly—that we should not cut funding to the FCO in these times. If anything, we should increase its funding, at a time of increasing uncertainty, because we need our eyes and ears on the ground. We need our expertise in foreign policy issues generally to be properly funded as that can save additional costs and prevent mistakes further down the line.
I rail against further cuts to the British Council. We have heard about funding being cut from £201 million to, I think, £154 million. Okay, there has been a £10 million increase since, but that is still a substantial cut of something like £40 million to a budget of £200 million in the past five years. The British Council has been left in a difficult situation because it must either scale back its activities, which cannot be good for many people around the world, or the UK, when it comes to soft power capability, or become more commercial. A sum of £40 million may not sound a lot in today’s world where figures of billions are bandied around, but to generate that £40 million, assuming a profit margin of 10%, the British Council will really have to gear up its commercial activity.
Although there are early indications that the British Council is coping, there is a risk that as it tries to become more commercial and enterprising—I accept that there is always room for improvement in such areas—its activity will begin to feed back against it, in the sense that its commercial activities will begin to erode its credibility and integrity. A great part of its strength is its quasi-independent approach, but if it is becoming more commercial, the danger is that that will be eroded in many respects. Will the Minister address that fundamental point? This concern is shared by not only me and other hon. Members, but many people within the British Council, as well as outsiders and experts.
Stephen Kinnock
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the effect on the reputation of the British Council and the United Kingdom is an important aspect of the discussion of financing? Is there a risk of a negative reputational effect if the British Council starts to be perceived as a money-making machine in the economies where it works, rather than an organisation concerned with building mutually beneficial partnerships?
Mr Baron
I tend to agree, but there is a balance. In defence of what happened previously, I would say that when the funding was £200 million, there were always commercial activities in the British Council, especially through the teaching of English overseas, for which its reputation is second to none. I agree, but I am trying to get across the point that as the British Council must increasingly gear up, in a commercial sense, to make good sizeable funding cuts—something like 20% in the past five years—there is a risk of losing sight of the balance. I ask the Minister of State to consider that and give us his response, because I, like the other Members in the Chamber, worry about the integrity and credibility of the British Council. That needs to be addressed, and it is a concern that has been expressed by those at the top table of the British Council itself.
I am conscious of time, but I will quickly move to another aspect of the funding that worries me. This might be partly the fault of the five-year political cycle, but we lose sight of the longer term when it comes to these sorts of funding issues. I suggest to the Minister that although these short-term cuts might meet a financial envelope set over a relatively small timeframe, there is a real danger that by making them now, we are creating false economies. The very nature of the British Council’s work means that we are talking about intangible benefits: the improvement of communication; fostering good relations with future world leaders when it comes to the UK; and increasing communication and education links. The benefit of all those intangibles cannot, in all honesty, be quantified, but we know they exist and can become more valuable in times of crisis. These short-term cuts could create false economies over the longer term.
Most generations that have preceded us believed that they lived in a safe and stable environment, certainly compared with their predecessors, but if history teaches us one thing, it is that this is an increasingly uncertain world, with variables that need to be catered for and anticipated as far as possible. The value of soft power in helping us to meet and address those uncertainties will increase as time passes, yet what is this country doing? It is cutting funding to its soft power capabilities, and not only the British Council. Although one accepts that funding for the BBC World Service has been transferred to the licence fee, there is still pressure on it, so that is another aspect of our soft power that is having to tighten its belt.
I argue that the FCO itself should be better funded and should not have to face the current cuts. We need a properly sighted foreign policy apparatus with the expertise to face increasing challenges, yet what are we doing? We are making further cuts to that as well. As long as I am a Member of this place, I will continue—unpopular though it may be for certain Front Benchers—to make the case for increased funding for the FCO, in the hope that one day someone will listen. To be better sighted and to have the in-house expertise to ensure that we do not make the sorts of mistake we have made over the past 10 or 12 years in our foreign policy interventions, for example, is a saving that is well worth making. Such an approach would lead to considerable savings further down the line that would far exceed the short-term savings we are achieving by having to cut the FCO budget.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) for securing the debate. I was not intending to speak, but I want to make two brief points arising from my personal experiences with part of the British Council.
As other Members have done, I praise the staff of the British Council, who helped me in my former life, before coming to this House, to take a British business—Christie’s—out to China. They enabled us to negotiate with the Shanghai Government and to win the first licence for a British auction house to hold a stand-alone auction in China. That, perhaps, has led me to take a different view from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) about the tangible benefits of the British Council for British businesses operating in the wider education and cultural sector on a daily basis.
It is primarily not UK Trade & Investment or British business councils such as those in China or India but the British Council to which businesses such as Christie’s, or education providers and great universities such as those near my own constituency in Nottingham, turn to for expert advisers and ambassadors when trying to forge links, whether cultural or commercial ones. Those links have tangible benefits for the British economy—in many cases, important commercial benefits—and, of course, are the drivers of soft power in new economies such as China in particular, where Britain’s brand is as much dependent on Christie’s, “Sherlock” or “Downton Abbey” as it is on education opportunities. We have to appreciate the role of the British Council. I hope the Treasury will appreciate that it is providing not only intangible benefits in economies and countries around the world but very tangible ones as well. I hope the Minister will take that up in his negotiations.
The need for a new commercial focus at the British Council requires new skills for its employees, who are not simply providing education opportunities and intangible benefits but negotiating links between British universities and universities in the field, sometimes involving multimillion-pound—and, indeed, bigger—contracts. With the help of the British Council, my own local university in Nottingham has founded one of the UK’s only stand-alone universities in Ningbo in China. It is not a joint venture with a Chinese university, but an independent university—a model that others around the world have sought to follow, which the Chinese Government have in fact prevented because it has been so successful. That is a huge benefit, both financially and in terms of education opportunities, to a UK university. Those are important factors that I hope the Treasury will take into account.
Through my experience at Christie’s, I have seen that there are enormous opportunities internationally for the British cultural sector—the arts and museums—particularly in emerging markets such as China. More museums are being created in China today than anywhere in the history of the world. There are 400 museums looking for new collections; all the auction houses and art dealers around the world are keen to get involved in that, for obvious reasons. The British Council is, again, crucial to that. Primarily commercial organisations but also our own museums, which are strapped for cash with reducing budgets, are turning to the British Council for help. There are huge tangible benefits that make the British Council essential.
Having spoken to my noble Friend Lord Maude, who is now at the helm of UK Trade & Investment, I know he is very conscious that one crucial element of his work in the education and cultural sphere is, in fact, in the hands of the British Council. Funding for the British Council and upskilling its staff, which costs money, is therefore crucial. British Council staff are paid less in general than those who work in the Foreign Office or UK Trade & Investment; if we want the highest-skilled and, particularly, the most commercially-minded employees, we need to pay them.
My second point is perhaps a contrarian one, given other points made today. Despite the fact that our soft power is extremely strong in the world today, I do not think the UK Government give sufficient priority to cultural diplomacy. Some of the UK’s greatest cultural ambassadors, such as Neil MacGregor, the outgoing director of the British Museum, say that the Foreign Office could and should give more priority to cultural diplomacy, particularly in comparison with some of our neighbours, who have systems such as cultural attachés in our embassies and people acting as principal ambassadors, forging powerful links. We see that in the British Council. For example, Carma Elliot, the head of the British Council in China, is arguably—I mean no disrespect—better connected than our ambassador, having spent an entire working lifetime operating in China and forging links at every level, whether those are cultural, political or commercial.
Greater investment in the British Council and in particular giving it greater priority within the Foreign Office are important. I have recently been involved in a campaign to create a greater role for the UK in protecting sites at risk in Syria and Iraq—on which we have made great strides, as I hope will be reflected in the Chancellor’s statement in a few weeks’ time. At an important summit that we held a few weeks ago at Lancaster House, the British Government committed £3 million to a cultural protection fund to support the brave men and women operating in the field through the British Council.
The British Council was integral to the success of that work; it was really the only point of contact in the British Government that those of us campaigning on it could go and see. The Foreign Office, at times, struggled to give us a contact and there was nobody else—neither the Department for International Development nor the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—to be the glue at the heart of our cultural diplomacy. It was the British Council that could take that forward and work with us to reach a point where, ultimately, the British Government will be the world leader in an important element of cultural diplomacy in the world today.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The temptation is to rise to my feet and proclaim the work of the British Council to be a jolly good show—to some surprise in this room, perhaps. Amid the hurly-burly of politics, we sometimes forget to acknowledge the very good work done by many people and organisations, and it is well worth our while taking the time to note that and congratulate them. I therefore very much welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing it. I am very pleased to be able to contribute to it under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
The British Council represents the kind of international intervention that most of us can support. As we have heard, it exists to create a better understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world—and, it is probably safe to contend, among peoples generally. Much of the comment around the work of the council is concerned with the projection of the UK’s soft power and the contribution that that makes to security. I have to admit to some feelings of unease with that phrase but, as an Australian, I can see how it is infinitely preferable to the form of power that the UK used to project around the world. The talking, listening and engaging of the British Council is very impressive, too; as I understand it, it reaches more than half a billion people every year.
The British Council is clearly a success and its reach continues to extend. It is to be hoped that the ethos of the council remains intact and keeps driving in the right direction. Even as it has had to rely more and more heavily on raising funds, it needs to keep going. Given how successfully it has managed that balancing act so far, we can have a fair degree of confidence that any failure will certainly not be for want of trying.
As has been said throughout the debate, we live in an age when funding cannot always be certain. I join other voices here in asking the Minister to say whether the Government are keeping an eye on how the British Council is doing in that respect, and whether there is a contingency plan to step in with support should it become apparent, at any stage, that the council is facing difficulties.
We should support the British Council’s work around the world and ensure, as far as possible, that its positive engagement with other nations and peoples continues. We should not only consider it a gift to the world, but look on the development of that understanding and co-operation as a gift to our children and to future generations. If we can make peace and discussion the more normal state of affairs, we will have done them a great service.
I turn to the comments made by colleagues. First, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke of the benefits of a mutual interchange of knowledge, saying it is the crux not only of opportunity but of the challenges thrown up by international situations. That was an important point. Importantly, he also paid tribute to the more than 9,000 staff sprinkled around the world, as he put it; their commitment and ability cannot be praised highly enough. He pointed out that given that the Goethe-Institut and Alliance Française are expanding, it is only appropriate that we further recognise the good work of the British Council and the importance that the council is supported properly by Government and does not become a purely commercial organisation, which is a theme that other speakers returned to. He spoke of its progressive focus on women and girls, which is a subject close to my heart, and of its forging relationships with the world’s young people. He also spoke of its ability to turn the nebulous concept of soft power into tangible results.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke of his work with the British Council, his firm consequent commitment to its benefits and the importance of exchange and long-term relationship building. He did not speak of the British Council, however, as banging the drum for Britain, which, as he said, could be viewed counterproductively. He said that it propagates a love of art, music and sport throughout the world—again, subjects close to my heart—and asked why we are thinking about cuts to it when its work is needed more than ever before.
The hon. Gentleman made the point that any reduction in grant funding reduces the flexibility of the council in delivering those very important parts of its work around the world. Continuing the theme from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, he warned that a commercial edge threatens the integrity of the British Council’s reputation. He pointed out that the grant is only 16% of the British Council’s income; I certainly agree about the importance of the perception of Government support to an organisation of this sort’s reputation. Grant-funded activity is far more likely to have a wide reach.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) spoke of his view that a re-imagining of the UK has taken place over the last 15 years. In particular, he mentioned the development of the important relationship with India and the British Council’s role in shaping the debate over its relationship.
Tristram Hunt
The hon. Lady is making a beautiful speech. I want to commend her on this celebration of a British identity. Will she expand on that? Do she and her party regard the British Council, which celebrates the notion of the UK and its culture and identity around the world, as inimical to what her and her party wish to achieve?
Deidre Brock
The Scottish Government do a lot of work with the British Council; in fact, I have done some work myself in my role as convenor for culture and leisure in Edinburgh council. The tenets that the British Council supports are security, prosperity and influence, and of course we also support those. I also think that such a soft power approach to dealing with other countries that are in difficulty is absolutely the right way to go. Our own Minister for external affairs is very active in that role himself. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Government support that approach from wherever it comes.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) spoke about the ability, as he quoted,
“to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment”,
which I thought was an interesting point. He said that other countries around the world are learning from the British Council’s approach that soft power, such as it is, offers a better opportunity for the sort of change that they are looking to effect in their relationships with other countries. He warned, therefore, of cutting funding, first, to the FCO, as its work saves additional costs further down the line, and similarly to the British Council. He pointed out that a great part of the council’s strength is a quasi-independent approach and that a commercial approach could, as has been mentioned, erode that. He mentioned a 20% cut over five years and the short-sightedness of creating false economies over the longer term, despite the difficulty of quantifying intangible benefits.
I particularly enjoyed the points made by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—as I said, I have a background in culture and sport—who praised the British Council staff for their work, particularly in assisting his business in liaising, for example, with the Chinese authorities in the past. He spoke of the very tangible benefits that the council brings to business, cultural, educational and social organisations in forming important links across the world. I also very much liked his point about cultural diplomacy and how important it is to raise that as a priority.
Finally, the message rings out very clearly from the speakers here today that we mess with the successful formula of the British Council at our peril. I look forward very much to the Minister’s contribution.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this debate on the excellent work of the British Council and the continuing importance of its global exchange of knowledge. We know that the strength of the council lies in its reach and the diversity of the programme that it offers, with over 20 million direct engagements with people from more than 100 different countries.
My first experience of the British Council was in 1996, when I met some teachers teaching in Nanjing; I was also teaching English at the time. It was great fun to go out with them after a day of teaching 30 undergraduates the same lesson 10 times in a row; it was also fabulous to see the soft power going out from the UK and the relationships develop. The benefits go both ways: our young people gain, particularly when they are involved in the work of the British Council abroad, and it makes them better citizens as well.
I had the privilege of joining parliamentary colleagues as part of a delegation of new Members, hosted by the British Council, on a visit to Pakistan in the summer. It was an excellent trip. We had an opportunity to talk not only about the importance of Arsenal football club when it came to running around with girls on the pitch, but about serious issues—particularly the terrible loss of life because of the war on terror, as it is known, and its impact. We were at an incredibly touching musical performance by some children whose teachers had been in Peshawar when the terrible assault occurred. The terrorist who performed that dreadful murder was recorded as saying that he had finished killing all the teachers and students and asking whom he should kill next. That was a turning point in that dreadful conflict because the Government realised they had to redouble their efforts to tackle terrorism.
Throughout that period and following the dreadful loss of life, the British Council was with Pakistanis. Up to 50,000 civilians have died and there has been a post-traumatic impact on young people from not just that dreadful assault, but so many more that we do not hear about in our press because they happen all too regularly. When such experiences occur, the British Council is present daily to deal with the effects of conflict. As we approach Armistice Day tomorrow, we must think about how to contribute to create a world that is peaceful and where prosperity and stability are given a chance. I cannot praise more highly the British Council’s work in moving us towards that.
It is marvellous to see the level of consensus in the Chamber on the importance of the British Council’s work and the creative power of education, language learning and the creative sphere. The hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) referred to Christie’s, whose work in the cultural sphere is important. We do not talk about such things enough here, but the creative industries contribute much more to the economy than we think. We should praise them and think about how to help to build them up, not just here but abroad.
I want to talk briefly about the excellent work with women. The British Council has a vein running through it: a commitment to women’s equality. As this week the world marks Equal Pay Day, which raises the continuing persistence of gender inequality in the workplace, we should reflect on the British Council’s work to support women through key skills training. That is an essential first step in addressing the problem and helping other social groups to be fully included within the economy.
The Springboard programme’s work is a great example. It is a leading UK-based women’s development programme designed by women for women. The British Council is drawing on its close relationship with the Arab world where it has been working for more than 30 years, having adapted the programme to the Arab culture and translated it into Arabic to help women release their potential and achieve success in both their personal and professional lives. The British Council built capacity in Arabic-speaking countries and certified more than 100 professional women as licensed trainers qualified to run its Springboard programme within its organisations. Those of us with an interest in development know that if we educate women, we educate the next generation, which is why the work is so crucial.
I want to draw attention to yesterday’s screaming headline in The Guardian—it is unlike The Guardian to have a screaming headline—
“UK losing clout overseas, warn top diplomats”.
In the same fortnight, we saw question marks about the School of Oriental and African Studies, of which I am an alumna; there were suggestions that some of the courses in those precious languages are so expensive to teach that it is not certain whether they can continue to be taught. Once such things have gone, they have gone, so we must work together to maintain that fragile network. The commitment to language learning and teaching, the creative industries, media, sport and culture is a great way of communicating with one another.
On realpolitik and as we move towards the Chancellor’s autumn statement, will the Minister bear in mind the context of any proposed cut: the deteriorating situation in Israel, Gaza and the west bank; the eruption in the middle east and Europe of the largest global refugee crisis since the second world war; an uncertain and unstable future for many north African states emerging from the “Arab spring”; and a worrying trend of radicalisation that is drawing in UK nationals and citizens from across the world? We must ensure that we continue to provide the necessary funding to the British Council as a clear investment in the UK’s foreign and security policy. It also has a responsibility to ensure that it continues to deliver and expand programmes that deal with those social groups and communities most at risk from modern security threats.
The Hammamet conference, launched in 2011, is one such programme that is leading the way in building relationships through engaging political leaders and civil society organisations in a practical and mutually beneficial series of workshops and plenary sessions.
I look forward to the Minister’s assurances that we need not have a debate such as this. We know that the Foreign Office and the Chancellor will do the right thing and invest in this important area of work abroad.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing this debate, and I am grateful for the contributions of all those present. The quality of debate today has been considerably higher than it sometimes is in this Chamber. That reflects the fact that people have come to this debate with knowledge and a genuine interest in the subject—we cannot say that about all debates—but there is an inherent danger in debates when there is virtual consensus on both sides of the House.
This debate underlines the fact that the British Council and its value remains as true today as it was in 1940-41, the year it received its royal charter and when its annual report stated that the council’s aim was
“to create overseas a basis of friendly knowledge and understanding of the people of this country”
and our foreign policy, something that is as valuable in times of peace as in times of war. When that was written, the battle of Britain was raging over our skies and the blitz of our nation’s cities was beginning. Even at that most critical moment, we knew the value of cultural relations and the role the British Council could play in our long-term security and prosperity.
Today, as ISIL’s destructive and intolerant influence spreads across Syria and as Russia continues to undermine the principles of international law and the sovereignty of its neighbours, the British Council, its values and the values it exports are needed perhaps more than ever. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Sir Vernon Ellis, who steps down as chairman next year, for his valuable work. I welcome the efforts of Sir Ciarán Devane, the new chief executive, whom I have met on a number of occasions, and his desire to align more closely the council’s purpose with our objectives: to make Britain safer; to build prosperity; and to expand the UK’s influence overseas.
It is sometimes difficult to communicate the nature of the British Council’s work because its impact on foreign policy in fulfilling its purpose, sometimes goes unsung, so it is worth reminding the House of some of its key programmes. In promoting the English language internationally, the British Council administered 3 million English language exams in the academic year 2013-14. During the same period, it taught 388,000 people in nearly 50 countries and reached an additional 132 million viewers, listeners and readers through print and digital products. Why is that important? It is because the world has a huge appetite to learn English. Almost 1.75 billion people already speak some English, and the United Kingdom publishes more books per capita than any other country. It is arguably our greatest asset—soft power or otherwise.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the number of people, including world leaders, who had studied in the United Kingdom. I am sure that if he had had time, he would also have mentioned the main Government scholarship programmes: the Marshall scholarship programme, one of the most prestigious programmes around, which currently has 31 scholars; the Commonwealth scholarship programme—two hon. Members who have spoken this morning have a strong Commonwealth heritage—which now has more than 900 students studying here in any one year; and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s flagship programme, the Chevening scholarship programme, which we have tripled to more than 1,800 students studying here this year.
All the work that I have described has a direct impact on some of our key foreign policy priorities. The British Council has maintained its public teaching operation in Kiev through the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The council is now scaling up its work with an additional investment of more than £1 million in each of the next two financial years, which will deliver an English for universities programme, helping to transform the ability of 12 leading Ukrainian universities to teach in English and operate internationally. The council’s work is building important links with the people of Ukraine and mutual trust in a country at the very top of our agenda and at a time when they will value our support most.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome, whom I congratulate on being one of the architects of the debate, mentioned Young Arab Voices. That programme works, as he knows, in six countries in north Africa and the middle east—Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Jordan—reaching more than 100,000 people in 2013 and a further 75 million through broadcast media such as BBC World Service Arabic. Through training and development of skills such as listening and debate, the programme helps young people to learn from others—to connect to their local communities through discussions on the issues that matter most to them, from unemployment and education to the media and women’s rights. I hope that hon. Members in this Chamber agree with me on the fundamental importance of building a stable future in north Africa and the middle east. By creating a space in which meaningful debate can take place without conflict, this work will, I hope, make a valuable contribution.
Looking ahead, next year, to the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, Shakespeare Lives—[Laughter]—will be a major programme of events and activities, aiming to reach more than half a billion people worldwide. The anniversary is arguably the most significant soft power opportunity for the UK in recent times. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) guffawed when I said “Shakespeare Lives”. Perhaps he is one of those people who thinks either that Shakespeare never wrote anything or that Shakespeare never lived at all, but I hope that he will take part in the activities, which he is well qualified to do.
Tristram Hunt
My colleagues and I were just reflecting on having a celebration called “Shakespeare Lives” on the anniversary of Shakespeare’s death.
Mr Swire
Well, I had to check the title because at one point I thought it was “Shakespeare Lives”—life plural—which could have meant something completely different, but I have no doubt that we all look forward to that great celebration. It is arguably the most significant soft power opportunity for the UK since the Olympics. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and others talked about the British Council and cultural diplomacy. I will return to that in a minute. The British Council is working with the GREAT campaign, British theatres, museums, artists and many others to put on an unprecedented programme of global activity that will include brand-new productions of Shakespeare’s plays, film adaptations, art exhibitions, public readings and educational resources for schools and English language learners of all ages.
The British Council must undertake all this activity in a rapidly changing world. This Government are determined to play a leading role in global affairs and we will continue to influence the international agenda. Our status as an international leader in soft power—something close to my hon. Friend’s heart—is incredibly important. Therefore, the British Council will play a fundamental role in ensuring the UK’s place at the top table.
Incidentally, I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) who talked about the importance of science diplomacy.
Mr Swire
If my hon. Friend did not, I apologise; I thought that he had mentioned science. I would just like to point to the work in the Foreign Office of Professor Robin Grimes and his team on scientific diplomacy. We have a new fund called the Newton fund, which is providing £75 million a year for five years; that is £375 million in total. We have 15 partner countries, including Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa, and so far £190 million of business wins and £250 million of leveraged funding have been delivered. Further work is being done to combat global issues such as dementia and antimicrobial resistance. Scientific diplomacy—forging links with others around the world—is another key part of soft power.
As hon. Members may know, the British Council went through a triennial review, published last year, which found the following:
“With its longstanding worldwide presence the British Council makes a significant contribution to the UK international profile…Its role is more relevant than ever: the potential return to the UK globally is enormous in terms of ‘soft power’, reputation and prosperity.”
The review also found that activity was not always well aligned with other bodies representing British interests overseas, and concluded that transparency, accountability and clarity of purpose should be improved.
I am pleased to say that the British Council has responded well to the review’s conclusions, taking action to ensure that those issues are addressed. The council is currently moving to a new operating model, so that its finances and commercial operations will be more transparent and accountable to the Government, Parliament and the British taxpayer. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is already chairing a new committee that aligns the Government’s priorities with the British Council’s activities overseas and, as I mentioned, the British Council has rearticulated its purpose in a way that aligns itself more directly with our international objectives to make Britain safer, to build prosperity and to increase British influence overseas.
Later this month, the Government will publish the initial results of their spending review and strategic defence and security review, which to a large extent will determine how we will meet the challenges of the future and adapt to this changing world. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is now not in his place, and others commented on this. I confirm that we are working with the Treasury to help ensure that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council continue to be funded in a manner that reflects our global ambition.
I will not be tempted to travel into the trap carefully laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay when he spoke so convincingly about the importance of having a Foreign and Commonwealth Office that punches above its weight. He will not hear me dissent from that as an aspiration, although I will not go into the funding implications of it. I will say that, during the past five to six years, within an extraordinarily tight spending envelope, the Foreign Office has been able to increase our international footprint around the world. I myself have opened up a number of new posts, not least an embassy in Asunción in Paraguay, an embassy in El Salvador, most recently a consulate in Belo Horizonte in Brazil, offices in China and so on. I think the Foreign Office is spread wide and punching well above its weight already, but he and others will look with close interest at our fate after the Chancellor’s autumn statement, and rightly so.
Mr Baron
I assure my right hon. Friend that no trap was intended, but I will leave him to muse on that. I suggest to him that footprint is one thing, but expertise and knowledge can be quite another. Where the FCO has been caught wanting—for example, during Russia’s annexation of Crimea it had no in-house expertise covering that area so it had to pull in other experts, and it had to pull in middle east experts during the Arab spring—it has been about expertise.
I want to bring my right hon. Friend back to the British Council. When it comes to funding, does he accept that many more cost savings could be made further down the line by avoiding conflict, by being better sighted and by influencing through soft power than will be achieved by the cuts that are being made to the budget? Does he agree, therefore, that we should adopt a much longer-term view of funding for our soft power capabilities, including the FCO and the British Council? Many would argue that the short-term savings are simply false economies, given the greater cost savings that could follow further down the line.
Mr Swire
I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s views about the importance of soft power, or preventive power, and I argue that the United Kingdom is doing well in that respect. I do not share his nervousness about the increased commercial activities of the British Council. In fact, I would argue that the threat from the commercial activities of the British Council has been real. Our concern is that in some ways, particularly in the provision of English language teaching and exams, it can freeze out the private sector. That is why I am pleased that the British Council has introduced a new independent complaints process run by Verita, which will help it better to hear and understand stakeholder concerns, including the concerns of the English language teaching and education sector, and take steps to address them.
Furthering British interests overall, the British Council has agreed with UK Trade & Investment a new business opportunity development process to help British companies to enter difficult markets. I was particularly pleased to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about his experiences with Christie’s, for whom he worked previously, and the assistance provided by the British Council in Shanghai. That seems to me precisely the sort of work that the British Council should do.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s comments about British cultural diplomacy. I had the honour of working alongside Neil MacGregor for many years in a previous incarnation, and I saw him again the other night at the “Days of the Dead” event at the British Museum. I am delighted that, when he stands down from his role at the British Museum, he will take up an advisory role in Berlin and in India. That is eminently sensible, because although he would hate to be called one of our great icons, he is in danger of becoming one of the most valuable of the British objects that influence the world. He would hate me to say that, so I hope that he does not read the debate.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to promote the salvaging of overseas cultural centres and places. This is not new. I refer him to the 2005 Conservative cultural manifesto, of which I was the author, in which we planned to create a fund, if we won the election, to do exactly the sort of thing that he has been doing. When one looks around the world and sees what has being going on in places such as Palmyra, it is clear that the need for such work has never been greater. There is a greater role for British cultural diplomacy.
Britain remains a leader on the world stage, with the networks that are necessary to promote our interests—despite all the pressures on those networks—to protect our people and values, to tackle complex and ever-changing threats, and, to use the words of the British Council’s 1940 report, to maintain our ability to
“create overseas a basis of friendly knowledge and understanding of the people of this country”.
There can, surely, be no safer or more prosperous world for the British people than one that sees Britain as a friend and understands our values. On that subject, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who suggested that he would be taking part in the Wembley event for Prime Minister Modi, along with some 60,000 or 70,000 others—including, probably, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who is the Minister for the next debate. We look forward to that visit.
It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said about a new generation of young Indians who come to the table without so much knowledge, or perhaps even baggage, about our colonial history, but who are interested in what modern Britain has to offer, our values and our culture—particularly our music, our fashion and our literature. That is hugely exciting, and it is why we have increased our diplomatic presence in India. The work of the British Council somewhere like that is a key priority, because I do not think we should just assume that a modern generation of Indians feels anything like the same link to this country as did their fathers and their grandfathers. It is abundantly clear that we have to work at it.
To conclude, I cannot put it better than the report of last year’s exacting triennial review process, which stated that the British Council was a
“valuable national asset and should be retained as the main official UK body for cultural diplomacy”.
The debate has benefited from the knowledge brought by the likes of the hon. Member for Aberavon, who worked for the British Council. It is something of a family business for him, and, as a Conservative, I am keen on family businesses. He may be as well, depending on which wing of the contemporary Labour party he sits. Other hon. Members who have touched on the work of the British Council see its long-term importance in the promotion of British soft power.
The Government are hugely proud of what the British Council does, and we want to continue to work with it under Sir Ciarán and whoever succeeds the chairman. I believe that Sir Ciarán is an ideal new chief executive to take the council forward. It is important to work with the council as it creates lasting friendships overseas and builds an appreciation of the United Kingdom—what it is, what it stands for and what it can offer—and as it helps to challenge some of the warped and hideous ideologies that are creeping up in this extraordinarily dangerous world. Ultimately, we must help the council to promote the values that we all hold dear.
David Warburton
There is not much time left, but I want to thank you, Ms Vaz, for your chairmanship of the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their fascinating contributions and the Minister for his encouraging response. I will not go through the contributions in detail, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has given us a great summation of people’s views, but I will say that I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Aberavon talk about his experiences, which, like those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), were very interesting. I support the concern raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon about funding, which was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay. Funding is the key point here, and I am sure that the Minister will go back to the Department and pass on the things that have been said.
It is clear that the British Council’s founding aim of encouraging friendly knowledge and understanding between the people of the UK and the wider world continues to grow. I hope that the debate has emphasised that that work has a powerful effect on the UK and its international standing, influence and global reach. It increases our prosperity and the prosperity of others, and it makes them and us safer. Those are noble aims indeed. Long may they continue and long may they be supported.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the British Council.
Court Closure (Buxton)
(8 years, 11 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
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of court closure in Buxton.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I think this is the first time that I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.
I have called this debate on the closure of the court in Buxton, which is in my constituency of High Peak. The proposal is part of a recently concluded consultation on the future of many courthouses across the country. Let me be clear from the outset that I understand the need to look at the situation of courts and to investigate the possibility of rationalising the service. However, there are serious flaws in the rationale that has been applied to Buxton, as is the case for other parts of the country, which was highlighted recently in this Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) in relation to courts in his constituency. My concern today, however, is about my constituency and its court.
First, I will provide some context to the debate. High Peak is a large area covering more than 200 square miles, and the two main towns, Buxton and Glossop, are 15 miles apart. There are many smaller towns and villages in between and around those two towns. The constituency sits in the east midlands, yet much of it faces the north-west, particularly Greater Manchester, for many of its services. Leisure, employment and news are all predominantly accessed from the north-west. Part of the constituency, Hope Valley, faces Sheffield for all of its services. There is very little traction with the east midlands. Similarly, public transport links feed into Greater Manchester and Sheffield, and I will come to that issue later.
Despite High Peak’s proximity to those two great cities of the northern powerhouse, Manchester and Sheffield, we should be in no doubt that it is very much a rural constituency. It therefore faces lots of problems that are common to many such areas across the country, particularly access to and ease of travel. Not that long ago, High Peak was served by two courts—one in Buxton and one in Glossop. The Glossop court was then closed, so there is now only one court serving the whole of this large constituency.
The Minister is aware of my views on the consultation—I have aired them before in this room and the main Chamber—but I wish briefly to reiterate one or two points. I have been involved in public service for more than 15 years, first as a councillor and then as a Member of this House. During that time, I have read many consultations on a variety of subjects. They have varied in their quality and scope, but I can honestly say that I do not think I have seen one so riddled with errors and mistakes as the one relating to this court. I shall run through some of the glaring errors.
The consultation’s biggest error was that it said that there was no public lift in the courthouse, but it is patently obvious that there is. I am absolutely baffled about how such a fundamental mistake could be made. I assume that the author of the consultation did not visit the court because a lift is not an easy thing to miss —it is pretty obvious. I concede that an acknowledgement was sent out about that error, but only after several people protested in response to the consultation. The circulation of the acknowledgement—I was going to say “apology”, but I do not think that that is the right word—of the mistake is still open to question, however, as some people did not receive clarification about the lift.
The consultation claimed that the building was not compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, ironically citing the lack of a lift—we have dealt with that issue—but the building is fully compliant with disability legislation under the Equality Act 2010. It also claimed that the consulting rooms were poor. Those were rebuilt five years ago and have had panic strips installed. There are three consulting rooms, of which two have been redecorated recently, and those three rooms are for two courts. I have visited those rooms and they seem perfectly fine to me, so I struggle to understand what allows them to be termed “poor”. Interestingly, if I look at some of the offices in the Palace of Westminster, including mine and perhaps that of my researcher, William Crook, those consulting rooms stand up very well in comparison.
The consultation claims that segregation is not possible. However, in 2010, the waiting areas were reconfigured to create a separate entrance and waiting room, thereby segregating witnesses and defendants. The consultation writers choose, creatively, to state that vulnerable witnesses have to use a waiting room across the road. The ability for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence via a video link without even having to enter the courtroom is an invaluable asset to Buxton court, not a liability. When vulnerable witnesses attend court, probably for the first time, and have to give evidence, the experience can be traumatic. It is a great reassurance for those witnesses to know that they do not have to go into the same court as the defendant by whom they feel threatened. It seems somewhat bizarre for the consultation to make such comments about a lack of segregation and then to cite segregation, where that exists, as evidence against the court.
The consultation claims that the court is utilised to 27% of its capacity, but I cannot reconcile that figure with what I see. I have never seen it justified anywhere. I am told that the justices’ clerk for Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire has publicly admitted that the figure is wrong. Despite requests from the magistrates—I know they have put requests in—for a justification for and breakdown of that figure, such information is yet to be seen. It appears that the figure of 27% was almost plucked out of the ether. I have spoken to lots of people about this. I am told that the delivery director for the Courts Service has said that, in the case of Buxton, the utilisation and travel figures, which are two key facts in the consultation, act “as a guide only”.
Even if we assume that the figure of 27% can be justified—at this stage it has not been, and I wait for it to be—it is worth noting that a shortage of legal advisers available to the court in Buxton is often the reason for its restricted use. There are no legal advisers on Monday at all in Buxton court—none can be found—so we immediately lose 20% of the working week. However, the Minister should not take that as an indication of a lack of demand, because there is a demand for Buxton court.
There is currently a lead-in time of about 14 weeks before a court listing comes to trial. Effectively, there is therefore a 14-week waiting list for a case to come to trial in Buxton. Again, that situation is created by a shortage of legal advisers to support the magistrates. For any consultation to cite lack of use for any service when there is a 14-week waiting list is completely nonsensical. Those are just a few issues in the consultation, although I could go on about it for longer.
I recently had a meeting at the court with representatives of the Courts Service and two local magistrates, Michael Hilton and Pam Ashton. Officials were still unwilling to hold their hands up and admit that there were mistakes in the consultation document, or even to make a concession that the contents were in any way wrong, other than regarding the mistake about the lift. I would not even call the comments about the lift a full and frank apology—they were almost a begrudging admission. The officials refused to acknowledge all the rest of the facts. They even stood in the consulting rooms, which seemed fine to me, but they just did not seem to like them.
I do not want to dwell on the consultation document, as I have had my say on that here and in the main Chamber some weeks ago, so I shall move on to the actual issue. The court in Buxton provides a valuable service to the whole of High Peak, not just Buxton. The subject of this debate is “court closure in Buxton”, but this is not a Buxton issue; it is a High Peak issue. The suggestion that the court should close is wrong and the case for that has not been made. Furthermore, should the case be made—that is a very big “should”—the proposal that the usage should be moved to Chesterfield borders on ludicrous.
As I have outlined, the court serves the large area of High Peak. There are reasonable public transport links between some of the towns and villages, but such transport is by no means universal. The loss of the Glossop court some years ago made life very difficult for my constituents in Glossop and the north of the constituency, but they manage. Anecdotally, I think that about two thirds of the work that goes through the court in Buxton is from the Glossop area, so closing the court in Buxton will add further burdens to the people of Glossop, as well as having an impact on those nearer to Buxton.
The idea that the work should be moved to Chesterfield will be ridiculous to anyone who has studied carefully the geography of High Peak, which would have been apparent to the author of this lamentable piece of work if they had paid proper care and attention. Chesterfield might look nice and convenient on a map or in a road atlas, but I assure the Minister that it certainly is not. For most people in High Peak, public transport routes to Chesterfield are limited to say the least. I know the area intimately—I was born in the area and have always lived there—so I know every road in and out of both Chesterfield and High Peak, but I decided that I should not rely on my anecdotal knowledge from a mere 53 years of residency. Yesterday, therefore, I went on the Traveline website and found out that to be in Chesterfield for a 9 am appointment using public transport, someone travelling from Glossop would have to get a bus at 6.30 am, with two train journeys on top of that. I am using Glossop as an example because it is the biggest and most populous town in High Peak, and because, anecdotally, about two thirds of the court’s work comes from that area. However, there are many other towns and villages in High Peak, including New Mills, Whaley Bridge, Chapel-en-le-Frith and, indeed, Buxton itself, and getting to Chesterfield from any of those places borders on the impractical.
I stress again to the Minister and his officials that just because the court is in Buxton, they should not think of it as serving only Buxton; it serves the whole of High Peak—all 208 square miles of it. I believe that the court should stay in Buxton, but whatever court is used has to be accessible from all corners of the constituency, not just a small area. It is a fact that more than 70% of the population of High Peak—I think the figure is 73%, so this is almost three quarters of the population—will be more than two hours away from the suggested replacement in Chesterfield by public transport.
I have read many submissions and spoken to a lot of people about this. Buxton Civic Association made many good points in its submission, but the key line in it states that the proposal is not exactly
“access to justice for all”.
That is absolutely right.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
As always, my hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the implications for rural communities. There are not only concerns in Derbyshire about having to travel from Glossop or Buxton to Chesterfield, because we have similar concerns in east Cheshire about having to travel from Macclesfield over to Crewe. Does he agree that it is vital for the Minister to consider the implications of added travel costs? When such things are considered, the cost savings, if any, of the proposed closure of the courts in Buxton and Macclesfield will be much lower.
Andrew Bingham
My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a good point. I will address the costs in a while, but he is right that moving the courts to different areas will increase expenditure.
I have talked about travelling to Chesterfield from High Peak using public transport, but that is not the easiest of journeys for car owners. The clue is in my constituency’s name. High Peak is high, which means that we probably have some of the worst winters in England, although I would not challenge our friends from north of the border because they have it worse than we do. The road from High Peak to Chesterfield, the A623, is probably one of the country’s highest roads. I have travelled it many, many times, and in the winter it is often closed or passable only with care—it does get the weather. The road will add another barrier to getting to court not only for defendants, but for magistrates and witnesses.
Due to the problems of getting to Chesterfield, there may be the further problem of an increased number of defendants failing to present themselves at the appointed time, which will lead to the issuing of arrest warrants and increased costs. We must also consider the effect on officials who are required to attend court, be they police officers, officers from the council, who often have to attend court for various matters, or any other official. At present, they can attend the court in Buxton as part of their working day, as Buxton town hall is opposite the courthouse and the police station is within walking distance. Officials can attend a court hearing and be back behind their desk or, in the case of police officers, back on the beat, very quickly. We all want to see policemen out on the beat, but there will be implications for that if they have to drive to and from court all day. A journey to Chesterfield for an official from High Peak would effectively remove them from their post for at least half a day and frankly, in many cases, for a full day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, the increased expenses incurred will erode the financial benefits of the proposal, if there are any.
On the subject of costs, let us talk about savings. The consultation claims that the annual operating costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, which I assume is the savings figure. I ask the Minister to consider such figures carefully because, of that £89,000, £43,000 are the magistrates’ expenses. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will join me in thanking all those who serve as magistrates. They do it for no remuneration and for little thanks, and we should all be grateful for their valuable work. Magistrates are rightly entitled to claim for their expenses, and they will retain that right wherever they sit. Moving the court to Chesterfield will serve only to increase the expenses of those sitting on the High Peak bench, which chips away at the savings.
If the running costs of the courthouse in Buxton are £89,000, of which £43,000 are magistrates’ expenses, we are looking at a £46,000 saving. If magistrates’ expenses were to increase by 20%, which is reasonable given the increased distance to Chesterfield in terms of both time and mileage, that would reduce the saving by a further £8,000, so we would be down to £38,000. That does not even begin to account for the extra costs incurred by witnesses. In short, I do not see how there will be any significant financial benefit, if any, from closing the courthouse in Buxton.
Another concern we should consider is that the extra travel will prove prohibitive, meaning that we will start to lose our local magistrates, whose local knowledge and background helps them to discharge their important duty. At a time when we all seek to get people involved in public service, we are putting a barrier in the way of people from High Peak who might think, “I would like to do something for the community by being a magistrate.” Faced with having to travel to Chesterfield several times each week or month, they might think, “Actually, I’m not sure I want to do that.” However, they might wish to take up such a role if the courthouse was in Buxton.
If the consultation had suggested moving the court to Stockport, I could have seen the logic, as transport links to the north-west and Greater Manchester are better from almost all parts of High Peak. It is easier to get to and from Greater Manchester for all those who are likely to use the court. I am sorry to say that the real work has not been done. A thorough and proper investigation as part of the consultation would have shown that to be the case, and the reality of the situation would have become apparent. I think that the regional and county boundaries have been allowed to get in the way of common sense. The proposal has been made after looking at the boundaries on a map; no one has considered the unique situation and geography of High Peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will probably concur that it is a lot easier to get to Stockport from not only my constituency, but his.
I have known the Minister for many years, and he is an honourable and reasonable man.
Andrew Bingham
That was only one “Hear, hear,” but I would say “Hear, hear” myself if I could.
The Minister has been very fair and open with me about the proposals. I thank him for the time that he has taken to speak to me, but I am afraid that he has been badly let down by his officials. He has been presented with a consultation document that is so flawed, erroneous and inaccurate that it is driving him towards a decision that appears to be straightforward, but is anything but. I hesitate to use the phrase “stich up”, because those are the words of tabloid newspapers, but this consultation appears to have been written to fit an outcome and the Minister is being driven down that road.
I could have gone into the consultation in greater detail, and I could have detailed all the combinations of journeys to Chesterfield from all the towns and villages in my constituency. I could have taken apart the financial aspects of the proposal even further, but I have already demonstrated that the savings are increasingly coming down and will dwindle to zero. Given the errors everywhere else in the consultation, if the Minister’s officials had bothered to get a breakdown of the usage figures, I am sure that they would be similarly incorrect and that I could very easily dispute them, too.
I want to give the Minister ample time to respond. I will meet him later this month, but I hope that he will take on board some of the points that I have raised today. I conclude by saying that I would like the court at Buxton to be retained. There is a case for it, and very good reasons support that view. I repeat that those are not just my assertions, or those of High Peak magistrates; they are those of the local council, which has considered the proposal and come out against it, of local people and of court users. I speak on their behalf, and I trust that the Minister will take my comments on board. They are factual and accurate, and they are the voice of the people of High Peak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I believe it is the first time that I have done so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) on securing this debate. As he said, we have known each other for many years, and I have always known him to be a diligent and conscientious Member of Parliament. His response to the consultation does him enormous credit, and his constituents should be proud of him. He spoke in the main Chamber when we had a debate there, and he and I have spoken about this issue on several occasions, as well as corresponding. He secured this debate, and there is a meeting to follow. His constituents cannot fault him for his sterling work in representing them.
My hon. Friend referred to a number of inaccuracies, and was unhappy with the apology given. I unreservedly and sincerely apologise for the inaccuracies in the consultation, and I add that whenever such inaccuracies have been brought to our attention, we have sought to clarify them as quickly as possible. I have before me a letter, which is dated 30 July and was sent to a number of people, from Lucy Garrod, the midlands delivery director. She refers to the absence of a lift and the travel times used as a guide, and specifies how the utilisation figures were calculated, simply saying that there were 248 sitting days every year and the calculations were made on the basis of five-hour days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who generously said, “Hear, hear” during the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, made a very good contribution, referring to travel times and costs. We envisage a modern 21st-century court structure in which people do not travel as much as they do now. I will come to that a little later.
Notwithstanding the inaccuracies, which we have sought to clarify as quickly as possible, I believe that there is merit in including these two courts for consideration in the consultation. The world outside the courts is changing rapidly. When we speak of access to the courts, we must acknowledge how the 21st century is progressing. People expect to be able to transact their business online, quickly and efficiently, at a time that suits them, and modern technology allows them to do so. Cheques and paper forms have been replaced by contactless payment cards and smart apps, while shopping for almost anything can be done from the comfort of one’s home. It is such technology that gives us an opportunity to invest in our courts and modernise them to meet the present and future requirements of court users and improve the delivery of justice.
Such improvement cannot be secured without difficult decisions. We must recognise that one third of our courts are used at less than half their capacity. As we have been told, the utilisation of Buxton magistrates and county court in the last financial year was approximately 27%, and operating costs were approximately £88,000, excluding staff and judicial costs. When such utilisation figures incur such costs, we must ask in the interests of the taxpayer whether we are using that money effectively.
We must also appreciate that the way in which the public access our courts is changing rapidly. Access to justice need not happen only by attendance at a conventional court building. For example, we are exploring whether there are opportunities to hold hearings in local buildings, which would help just as effectively to maintain a local presence for justice. There is already proven technology in my hon. Friend’s constituency: a video conference facility is available at Buxton citizens advice bureau, and the police already give evidence via live links to courts in the west midlands. The citizens advice bureau with the video conferencing facility is just across the road from the court, but it could just as well be five, 10 or indeed 25 miles away. Through that facility, the courts can be accessed.
Our reform programme must also be considered in the wider context of our plans to transform how courts and tribunals operate and deliver services to the public. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary has said, the reform of the Courts and Tribunals Service offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a modern, user-focused and efficient service.
Many people encounter our justice system when they are at their most vulnerable, when they are a victim or a witness in a criminal case, or as an individual, business or family trying to resolve a dispute. We must ensure that we make better use of technology to provide easier access to a more responsive system, with swifter processes and more proportionate services. Front-line staff work incredibly hard to provide a high-quality service to the public. However, they and our customers are often poorly served by the infrastructure supporting the administration of a system in desperate need of improvement.
Of course we must respect our traditions, and we must ensure that there is a place for the most serious cases in the courts in the traditional way. However, progress towards a more proportionate approach to court attendance would eliminate wasted time and enhance confidence in the administration of justice. We have a duty to offer more convenient and less intimidating ways for citizens to interact with the justice system while maintaining the court’s authority for serious cases.
Andrew Bingham
I am sure that the Minister will come to this in his closing remarks, but he mentioned convenience. Will he address the issue that I raised about the potential of going to Stockport instead of Chesterfield? As I said, Chesterfield is completely and totally inconvenient. If the Government are to pursue that path, which I believe is wrong, will he at least give me some indication that despite the regional and county boundary, Stockport will be given serious consideration as an alternative?
Mr Vara
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I can tell him that we are crossing borders and boundaries wherever necessary. He has made a powerful case for Stockport as an alternative. My officials are at hand, and I will personally see to it after this debate that they seriously consider that option.
I am mindful of the time restriction. I will round up by saying that we propose a reform programme fit for the 21st century. It is our intention that modern technology should make it unnecessary for many people who currently go to court to do that. That includes lawyers, who at present can find themselves hanging around at court for hours to have a 10-minute hearing before a judge. We envisage two sets of lawyers booking a 10-minute slot with a judge, who can then have a video conference or a telephone conference.
The world has moved on, and we must move on with it. The Lord Chancellor and I face difficult decisions. Many people have responded to the consultation. Generally speaking, the consultation has had more than 2,000 replies from members of the public and the legal fraternity. It will not be easy to take decisions, but I assure my hon. Friend that all his contributions, including the comments that he has made in this debate, will be considered seriously when we come to those decisions. I congratulate him again on securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Houses of Parliament (Family-friendliness)
(8 years, 11 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
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the family-friendliness of Parliament.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton, and I thank all the hon. Members who have come to Westminster Hall today; it is a pleasure to see people from all parties here. In particular, I thank the Deputy Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, for attending. Although only one of those women is my hon. Friend, I have experienced sorority from both, and have felt them both urging me and other women forward in this place, and I wish to state very clearly that this issue is not a party political one.
We are here to discuss the family-friendliness of the Houses of Parliament. I wrote and amended this speech last night. Because of the Scotland Bill debate, I once again failed to ring to wish my children goodnight before bed or to check in with my husband, who was ill yesterday. As I typed this speech at 11.29 pm and the chimes of Big Ben began, the importance of this debate seemed incredibly acute.
I am not the first person to raise this issue; there have been champions, male and female, from all parties. As I seem to do every single day, I must give credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I credit her work over the years in changing Government policy, party policy and this place for the reason that I am standing here today. However, Mr Speaker has also been a champion, and I have just been hearing of other champions, including male champions from the Government Benches. In the spirit of full cross-party support, I must mention that it was a Liberal Democrat MP, the former hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, who was the first MP to carry her baby through the voting Lobby. Every week now, I see Members with their children walking through the Lobbies, and guess what? Nobody dies. That change is absolutely a credit to her.
People have been campaigning on this issue for a very long time—I think that today we will hear about some people who campaigned on it before I was even born—and progress has definitely been made. We have come a long way from the bad old days of the 1970s. For me, that is best symbolised by the example of what was Bellamy’s Bar. Once, it was no doubt smoke-filled and gin-fuelled; I say that, although I have no experience of it myself. It sounds like quite good fun. Now, however, it has been turned into a nursery, so hurrah for progress. However, we still have an incredibly long way to go before this place is a proper family-friendly environment.
Jess Phillips
In the spirit of gender solidarity, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.
Mrs Miller
I thank the hon. Lady, who is a fellow member of the Women and Equalities Committee, for giving way and I commend her for securing this debate. I applaud her focus on a family-friendly Parliament, but should she not also consider a people-friendly Parliament? I want to see a Parliament that is representative of the country that we live in, so does she share my concern that the number of MPs who are from different ethnic, religious and social backgrounds, and the number of disabled people in Parliament, is not as high as it should be?
Jess Phillips
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. I could not agree more. The two issues are potentially distinct but have an enormous crossover, and much of what I will go on to say today is about how there are so many barriers to so many different people coming into this place that Parliament is not a particularly healthy working environment for anybody: people with families and people without families; older Members and younger Members. An awful lot goes on in that place that acts as a huge barrier to people working here.
Tom Brake
First, the hon. Lady is right to say that things have moved on slightly. When my daughter was born 18 years ago, during Divisions I had to leave her in the Lib Dem Whips Office with members of staff in their early 20s who did not have the foggiest idea of what they were supposed to do with a six-month-old. Things have improved slightly since then.
I apologise for not being able to stay for the duration of this debate, but I would like to take this opportunity to say how appalled I was by the abuse that the hon. Lady received recently. However, the point of my intervention is to say that I sit on the House of Commons Commission and clearly there is work under way, with which she will be familiar, which Sarah Childs is doing in relation to a gender-sensitive Parliament. I will make sure that, on Monday, when the Commission meets, this debate is taken into account, to see if there are issues that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have raised that the Commission should examine.
Jess Phillips
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support in regard to my own experiences during the last few weeks of what it is like to be a woman in this place. I also thank him and the other members of the Commission for its continued work, and for offering to take back to it anything that is discussed here today. I very much hope that this debate and any debates on this subject become part of the bigger picture of the Commission’s work.
I will now say why this issue is so important, before going on to talk about some of the specific problems and some of the possible ways to address them. I am not trying to present any one possible solution as a silver bullet that will make us a family-friendly place. I am contributing to a debate that has been going on for decades and that I am sure will continue in the future.
Next spring is particularly important. As has been highlighted, Professor Sarah Childs will be publishing her final report on delivering a gender-sensitive Parliament, and there will be a parliamentary debate on the implementation of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation, which reported in 2010. That seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to debate this issue, and to build cross-party consensus to achieve real change. I stress again that we will get such changes only when we work hard together and not combatively, so that everyone in this place feels that they have been involved in this process.
First, why is having a family-friendly Parliament so important? I am not sure if I have made it particularly clear yet—I can be a bit shy about it—but I am a feminist and this is a feminist issue. However, that should not make anyone think that it is an issue that affects only women. It directly affects all people in Parliament who have families, and it indirectly affects every single person up and down the country. Parliament not being family-friendly affects MPs and parliamentary staff immediately and directly, but it also has a wider effect and impact in terms of representation.
On Saturday night, I was having a chat with my husband, who is and has always been the primary carer of our children, and a friend of ours, who is a single mum. We mulled over some of the ideas about how to make this place a more family-friendly parliament. Very quickly, they turned to the idea that, “Well, you knew what the job was going to be like. You don’t expect family-friendly oil rigs. It is just the nature of the job.” That is a fair point and one that I am sure will be expressed to me in the below-the-line comment sections of any newspaper that chooses to report this debate.
However, Parliament is fundamentally different. Yes, there are many jobs that are still not that family-friendly. It is the nature of jobs with a predominantly male workforce—something, of course, that we should challenge. However, it is not the job of oil rigs to reflect society; it is not the job of oil rigs to push for laws and regulations to improve families’ lives; and the world does not look at the people who work on oil rigs for an example of what our culture should be. But it is the job of Parliament to do those things.
My friend concluded our discussion on Saturday by saying that, as a single mother and sole provider for a young child, for her to be a Member of Parliament is virtually impossible. That statement alone should highlight the fact that we still have such a long way to go before this place truly represents the world outside.
The immediate impact is easy to see. Think of the large number of MPs who are mothers who stood down at the last election. Often, debate on this issue has mainly focused on female MPs, which is quite understandable, as the current situation is a huge contributor to the under-representation of women in Parliament. However, all too often we do not recognise that it does not affect just women MPs. It affects all MPs with care-giving responsibilities, and not just MPs who are parents. It affects those of us who have sick relatives, including husbands who have been unwell or ageing parents who we have to look after. All those factors should be considered in the round.
Male and female parliamentarians with young children or dependent family members undoubtedly need extra help, but they are only part of the story. The issue does not affect only MPs. Every MP has staff, as does Parliament itself. There are thousands of people who protect the building, work in the kitchens, sort the mail and do the research in the Library—there are even people who write down every word we say. Those people keep this place going. If it were all left to MPs to do, I am fairly certain that the place would grind to a halt in just a few days, if not hours.
Problems with the availability and affordability of childcare, parental leave, unpredictability, and unsocial hours affect everyone in this place who has family responsibilities. When a Parliament is structured in such a way as to make balancing work and family difficult, it excludes people with families, and the wider effects of not being family-friendly are hugely troubling. The best people are put off applying, and we want the best people shaping the laws and opposing and supporting the process. Ultimately, that is what is best for the country, but someone with family responsibilities would definitely think twice about working here.
I come from working in a women’s refuge where all the staff were women and most of the service users were women and children, and I often joke that when I first walked into Portcullis House it seemed to me as though it were staffed entirely by young men called Will, Tom or Ben. I am sure that the huge workforce of young men is absolutely brilliant, but we must be more reflective of society. In my old job, we used to joke that we could employ a full-time obstetrician such was the pregnancy rate among our staff, but here weeks will go by without anyone seeing a pregnant woman walking around the estate. This is about our wanting the best people, and if we want fair competition and to attract the best, we should remove the barriers that prevent those exact people from applying to be Members and to work in this place.
In many ways, normal workplaces are much more family-friendly than Parliament. We have an awful lot of catching up to do. If at some point in the future we go beyond our current work practices, that will be good. We should be leading the way and setting an example. Not being family-friendly sends the wrong message to the country. We are a highly visible workplace—I feel like waving at the cameras now. The only jobs in which there are more cameras and microphones are those on chat shows. So what we do here matters. We should be a beacon of a proper 21st-century family-friendly workplace.
While we are thinking about scrutiny—the eyes and ears of the world on us—no one could fail to notice when glancing up at the benches in the Press Gallery that women are grossly under-represented in the press lobby, and I will wager—I do not have any empirical research—that mothers are even more so. I remember introducing the previous leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), to the press pack on the day when he talked about how he was going to change the Labour party’s rules and make it so that more people could be involved, so that we could reach out and, essentially, reflect society a bit better. After he spoke, the press lobby grilled him and grilled him: “Do you really think that your party, or any party, or Westminster, is particularly reflective?” After he had walked out of the room, I sat in front of the press lobby—I was not a Member of Parliament then, just a woman called in to introduce the leader of her party—and I chastised them. There was not a single woman among them—these opinion formers, the people who tell others what happens in this place—and they dared to have a go at him about not being representative. The way in which this place is run undoubtedly changes what gets reported here—how the world sees us—and we cannot go on like this.
While we continue with the status quo and push back at any challenge, we are guilty of huge hypocrisy. I have spent all morning with the members of the Women and Equalities Committee discussing, for example, the barriers employers put before women who are pregnant, and thinking about the best strategies for reducing the gender pay gap caused by women having children. But how can we lecture others when our House is not in order? If we look around at this place, with its fancy history and ancient carvings—and the rather glam curtains in this room—we can see that are in a huge glass house. Yet we are chucking stones. We should sort ourselves out so that I and the other members of the Women and Equalities Committee have a leg to stand and do not look like fools when we make recommendations. What business do we have asking big business and big employers to do something we are simply not willing to do ourselves?
Almost everyone in this place, I think, gets this. There are still a few dinosaurs in Parliament, gradually hardening into fossils, but most people in here want this. So, what is standing in the way? What are some of the aspects of Parliament’s dominant culture that hold us back, and what can we do about them?
The week before last, my children ran around these halls and in the canteen. There was a notable singing—or rather screaming—competition between my youngest son and the little boy of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). It was half-term and, for some reason, the recess in the House does not marry with that occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby has raised the good—and seemingly obvious—idea of making recesses coincide with school half-terms. That idea has been proposed by men and women from all parties, and it is an idea whose time has come.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jess Phillips
I will give way first to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) and then to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray).
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady accept that apart from the October half-term, the progress we have made means that most recesses dovetail with the state holidays and half-terms, except for Scottish MPs?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. Progress has definitely been made. The October half-term is somewhat of an anomaly. I imagine that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts was going to make that exact point about Scotland, as I will go on to do.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) did, in fact, steal my thunder in that the recess dates do not follow the Scottish school holidays, almost at all. That is important not just from a family-friendly point of view but from a representation point of view, and there needs to be some cognisance of that from the House authorities and the Leader of the House. They need to consider whether there can be some movement—a week here and there—that would allow us to perform our duties both as parents and as representative MPs.
Jess Phillips
I very much welcome those interventions—they both stole my thunder. I will come on to talk about how our holidays have definitely moved more in line with the UK’s school holidays, except where Scotland is concerned.
Going back to the idea of moving the October recess, I am aware of the well-rehearsed arguments about how that would make it too soon after the conference recess, but I simply bat that back and ask, “Why do we have a three-week conference recess?” This might be a scandalous idea, but why do we not have our conferences a bit earlier or, God forbid, hold them, as the Scottish National party does, on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday so that they do not get in the way of parliamentary business? We could then consider moving our holidays around to fit everyone in this place.
In solidarity with my Scottish colleagues, I must raise the issue of the Scottish education system. As has been outlined, its holidays—all the half-terms and the summer break—run completely out of kilter with the recesses in this place. I am not certain, but I think that Christmas might be at the same time in Scotland—it is a fairly national thing. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) told me that the overlap between the recess here and the Scottish school holidays is only two weeks, which will allow him only the same fortnight each year to go on holiday with his family. He will therefore miss the same annual events each year in his constituency, which will affect his ability to represent his constituents. That seems completely unfair, given that my summer recess falls exactly in line with my children’s summer holidays. The hon. Gentleman asked me to raise with the Deputy Leader of the House the possibility of a three-week overlap, at the very least, for his family, and for other Scottish Members with children. That is a reasonable request, so it would be crass of me not to make it; this is, after all, the UK Parliament.
There will be push and pull between parents whose children live in London and the surrounding areas and those whose children live elsewhere. I would prefer longer hours in Parliament and to be at home in my constituency for more days of the week, but I know that that would not work for everyone. I was warned by people who have been in this place for much longer than me that if I ever wanted to see my children, I should move them to London, but my kids’ school, their friends and their life are in Birmingham. I could not expect my dad or my parents-in-law to up sticks to help me with the childcare as they do now. We should not want or need to encourage people to live in London, because that would make this place even more divorced from the lives of most of those whom we are here to serve.
Neil Gray
Perhaps the hon. Lady will reflect on the fact that Members of the Scottish Parliament do not feel the need to move their families to Edinburgh, despite having to travel great distances, because that Parliament’s Chamber and parliamentary week are structured to ensure that things are more family-friendly. Perhaps we could learn something from that.
Jess Phillips
I spend an awful lot of time in this place, particularly with the Women and Equalities Committee, learning that there are many areas on which we could learn from Scotland and how it runs things. There are many, many things about how the Scottish Parliament is run, such as how the Members vote—the Divisions are held in a completely different way—that seem to be much more family-friendly. I encourage any commission that is taking place and the Deputy Leader of the House to consider how we might be able to mirror some of the existing models in Scotland. Scotland, much like Sweden, is some sort of panacea of all the good things that happen in people’s lives.
Jess Phillips
It is something that I have considered, and I was going to ask the Deputy Leader of the House what she thought of the idea. I am not entirely sure how it would work. I feel that if I were to job share, I would still end up doing exactly the same as I do now, which incidentally was what happened to me when I worked part time—I was paid for three days a week and worked for five. I therefore have some concerns about the idea. Constituents will want their MP regardless of whether it is their day. I know that Professor Childs has been looking into that, and it should be part of the debate.
When looking at a gender-sensitive Parliament, as opposed to a family-friendly Parliament, there is certainly an argument for considering the idea of job shares for those with Government positions. That would allow people with children—this largely affects women, I suppose—to take up positions in government from which they might otherwise be barred. While there might be an argument for that, I cannot see how job sharing for MPs would work, although I am willing to be proven wrong.
Work on timetabling would be a far less complicated way of making things a little easier. Why do we not find out about future business further in advance? Things have definitely improved in terms of hours, as I am sure we will hear from people who have been Members for a while. If we knew further in advance that we would have to be in Westminster or to stay late, it would make it easier to combine work and family responsibilities. It would make it easier to organise childcare in advance and would stop me constantly making promises to my sons that I often cannot keep when it comes to the day.
What does the Deputy Leader of the House think of giving us more warning in the business statement of future business, albeit recognising that issues can emerge that we cannot predict? Does she think that MPs or Ministers should be allowed to job share? What models could be considered around proper systems of parental leave, maternity leave, paternity leave and carers leave for everyone who works in Parliament, including Members, and what are the Government’s proposals?
The all-party group on women in Parliament produced a report last year that asked the House to reconsider the age at which children are allowed in the Lobbies. I think that some Members might be breaking that rule already, but does the Deputy Leader of the House agree the age should be raised from one year to cover all pre-school children—those aged from nought to four? Childcare costs are recorded and published as individual MP’s expenses, while disability allowances are aggregated, but that effectively disincentivises MPs from claiming for childcare costs, as they will have higher expenses claims than other MPs. What does she think about changing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority system to deal with that?
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady refers to IPSA. Does she feel that there is any room for a family impact assessment of some of the IPSA rules, especially regarding how children over 18 are not treated as part of the family? Does she have any comments on that?
Jess Phillips
There needs to be an overarching look at what IPSA provides and how it reports in respect of families. The right hon. Lady mentions dependents over 18, and while my children are much smaller, I remember how long I was dependent on my parents. We must always be careful in Parliament about making a rule for us that does not reflect the rules we make for those outside. Thinking about IPSA, I suppose this goes back to my point about how the press lobby often reflects some of the issues around this place not being a family-friendly environment.
I often hear of those MPs who are lauded for having lower expenses. My leader is a good example of that, but the truth behind the headline is that those MPs who live outside London, who have dependents and who claim the top-up for dependent children will always be seen to be claiming more, even though in my case that is only so that I can afford a place for my children to sleep when they are with me in London. The headline of “Greedy MP” will never tell that story. As has been suggested, I sometimes wonder whether this relates to how women are treated in the media. The idea of a greedy woman or a woman being away from her children is delicious to the media, and some of the ways in which IPSA reports on childcare costs and our expenses exacerbates the situation for women MPs.
Does the Deputy Leader of the House think that women should be allowed to breastfeed in the Chamber and in Committees? I realise that that would be ridiculously controversial, but I can tell Members from years of experience that putting off breastfeeding a baby makes you feel like you are going to die or explode at any minute. I can totally sympathise with colleagues with new born babies who sometimes need to do that quickly and suddenly.
How can we send out the message that we are family-friendly? The possibility of family days has been raised, when people in Parliament would be encouraged to bring their children to this place and we could discuss issues specifically affecting families inside and outside Parliament. We must be seen to be more like the people outside for them to trust us again. Would the Deputy Leader of the House encourage that idea?
Having a crèche is a lifesaver for many parents who work in Parliament. What does the Deputy Leader of the House think about keeping it open later on nights when officials, security staff, MPs and their staff, Clerks and others have to stay later? I am always wary when I have a deadline to pick my children up from childcare. We must be careful that we do not have one rule for in here and one rule for out there, but until the rules in here look like normal working practice out there, I think that we could get away with having the crèche open later.
Those are just some of the ideas I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to consider, and I look forward to hearing other Members’ ideas. My hero of the week is the Canadian Prime Minister who, when asked last week why he had appointed a 50% female Cabinet, said simply, “Because it’s 2015.” As a mum of two young children, a Member of Parliament and a resident of a different bit of the UK, I say that it is 2015, so let us get on with this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
Order. Before we continue the debate, I need to say that because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, I am imposing, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. I remind Members that for each of the first two interventions accepted during a speech, the clock will be stopped, with one minute added to the time remaining for the Member who gave way. A third or subsequent intervention will count against the time limit. The clocks on the wall will display the time remaining to a Member.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this important debate.
I will be brief. I am depressed to think that I came to this place when the hon. Lady was in her first year at primary school. The plus, though, is the strides that have been made in this place since then. When I first came here and through into the ’90s—I had two young children—the House of Commons sat from 2.30 in the afternoon, Monday to Thursday. On Monday to Wednesday, we were lucky if we finished at midnight; more often than not, it was 1.30, sometimes 3 o’clock, and very occasionally each Session we would go through the night.
Those were not family-friendly hours at all. Since then, due to work done by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), John Major and others, as the hon. Lady mentioned, we have improved the situation, but more needs to be done. I personally would like Mondays to start at 11.30 am, like Tuesdays and Wednesdays. I know the argument is that Members of Parliament have to come down to London, but they could get up a little earlier or possibly come the night before, although that might be anti-family-friendly as well if they are not moving up and down with their families.
Neil Gray
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we were more efficient in how we dealt with business in the House, perhaps we could get through the week quicker? That would allow us to sit on fewer occasions, be in our constituencies as representatives more often and also carry out our duties as parents.
Sir Simon Burns
I could make a snide comment about the Scottish National party stopping its habit of forcing Divisions in the House of Commons, which might be more efficient, but I will resist that cheap jibe. What I will say is no, I do not agree, because we have a job of work to do. We sit 34 or 35 a weeks a year. We have the weekends—Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays if we are so minded—plus about 16, 18, 20 weeks a year to work in our constituencies. There is a job for us to do here. When the House of Commons is sitting, we should maximise the time and do that job rather than constantly whittling away the amount of time we work here. The less time we worked here, the less ability we would have to hold the Executive—the Government—to account, and that would be a big mistake.
We need to look more at the recesses, which have improved dramatically, as have the hours. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made a point about programme motions. To start with, I was not in favour of those, but they do give a clarity and a consistency to our debates so that we know more about what is happening when, and we make our speeches and judgments on the basis of that. We need to look at all that. Of course, Scotland has a problem with regard to its schools’ summer holidays. We could see whether we could fine-tune when we go into recess in July to accommodate Scottish Members of Parliament. That would be perfectly reasonable.
I am very pleased to see the change in the composition of the House of Commons. Again, in the 1980s, both the Labour and Conservative parties were predominantly white, male and middle class. The situation has now improved beyond all recognition, partly through the efforts of Tony Blair as well as of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with the A-list from 2005 to 2010. What we have seen is far more women in this place, which is absolutely right, although we need more; far more people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, which is right because that reflects what goes on in this country; and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said, people with disabilities. We have got to be a representative Parliament.
Mrs Miller
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the overwhelming majority of Members are still white males?
Sir Simon Burns
I would not agree that an overwhelming majority are. I certainly think that a significant minority are female and non-white, and not all white male MPs are middle class. There is a range of backgrounds, funnily enough, in both parties. Everyone stereotypes the Labour party as the party of the working classes and the Tory party as the party of the middle and upper classes, but that is not true if one looks. There are a lot of differentiations both ways. There is even—one immediately comes to mind—an honourable public schoolboy who used to be a member of the shadow Cabinet until the recent leadership election, which shows how some barriers have broken down.
A slightly more controversial subject is the question of breastfeeding. We have to be careful that, in pushing for a more realistic approach, we do not give the tabloid press the opportunity to ridicule us. I may be old-fashioned, but I share the view of the last but one Speaker of the House of Commons, Speaker Boothroyd, who, when asked on a point of order by a Labour MP for Swindon, Julia Drown, whether it would be possible to breastfeed in the House of Commons Chamber, said that when she saw her checkout girl at Tesco’s breastfeeding, she would allow it. [Interruption.] Sorry?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I was merely making the point that one cannot scan items and breastfeed at the same time.
Sir Simon Burns
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, but I think the point behind Speaker Boothroyd’s comment was right: there is an appropriate time and place for breastfeeding. I am simply offering a word of caution; we do not want this issue to degenerate and the merits of the case to be undermined because we are ridiculed for what is proposed.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Simon Burns
No, because I do not have much time—I am not sure how much time I have got.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The other day at about 8 o’clock, I found myself heading back from the mother of Parliaments, which is—I still pinch myself—my workplace. I was heading from tube to road with a neighbour of mine from a few doors away, who said, “Late night at work, was it?” I was not fast enough to say no, this was an early night; as all Members know, it can be a lot later than that on a Monday.
Last night I did not even see my 11-year-old, who started high school this year. All the parenting guidebooks would say that that is a crucial time to be with one’s child. Until we get elected to this place, we do not really know what goes on in here. I have been here for six months and I am still acclimatising. We do not know what time we will get away until the day itself, and that unpredictability is part of the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) so persuasively highlighted.
To those on the outside, a debate such as this, as the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) mentioned, will not get a lot of sympathy. We are seen as overpaid and all the rest of it, but, after six months here, I have worked out that this place is many things. It is awesome in the true sense of that word: awe-inspiring. It is traditional and humbling, but one thing it is definitely not is family-friendly, so I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate today.
A Mumsnet survey from 2011 found that 91% of MPs would not describe their job as family-friendly. One of the early visits that I hosted here was for a school party from Ellen Wilkinson school in West Acton; I am proud that my constituency has a school named after a woman Labour MP who led the Jarrow march. In the Q&A bit afterwards, one of the girls said to me, “Why are there so few women MPs?” Partly, we take that for granted when we are on the inside, and my hon. Friend highlighted well the inside/outside divide on these issues. In my reply, I cited the family-unfriendly hours. On Mondays, I have been getting away at half-past midnight—and I am always the first person to leg it. Even when I was heading home at eight o’clock, and my neighbour thought it was late, I had been trying to get away quickly.
The Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation talked of the
“inflexible and unwelcoming attitude of the House towards families”.
That should not be so. However, as my hon. Friend said, we need reform on many levels. We need to be a modern Parliament, to reflect the communities we seek to serve; otherwise, we will have an ever-narrowing talent pool, and the big fish in that small pond will be self-replicating professional politicians. My hon. Friend mentioned that the Labour party’s previous leader—indeed, the three party leaders at the general election—had done nothing other than work for head office; they were backroom boys who had become leader. We need people from outside who have had other adult workplace experience and can bring in fresh thinking.
How would we define the average family in the UK today? The definition would have to take into account 2 million single parents. Gingerbread remarks that, contrary to media reports,
“these days, bringing up children on your own is actually a very normal part of family life in the UK.”
One in four dependent households is now a single-parent family. As a parent, every working mother constantly feels guilt about where their loyalties lie. If they work in a place such as this, that is magnified and multiplied severalfold, and that is even truer if they are a single parent. Flexibility in the workplace has been legislated for, but it seems not to apply to this place. Wherever people work, flexibility has a stigma attached to it, and they are made to feel embarrassed about even asking for flexible arrangements. However, that is even truer in the House. Gingerbread states that 57% of single parents work and that their average age is 38, contrary to the Daily Mail stereotype of their being feckless, teenage, brown-faced people.
All the research shows that mums are under-represented in this place, and single mums even more so. It takes a certain type of person to be an MP—we have to be shameless exhibitionists and a bit megalomaniac, and we must have a sense of public service and an ability to adapt. If all those things stifle diversity, that is a bad thing. We have to balance all these things.
To some extent—we heard this from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford—the idea that we have always done things this way—
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Hamilton. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for bringing this important issue to the House. I am glad to have had the opportunity to participate in a number of debates on issues—whether tampons, breastfeeding or whatever—that are particularly important to women across the country.
It is perhaps difficult to ascertain how family-friendly the House is, but I have been able to bring my children down once in the six months I have been here, and that was during recess.
Neil Gray
I have shared that experience. I have not been able to bring my one-year-old down terribly often. Part of the problem is that, although there is a nursery here, it does not have a crèche facility. Children have to use it full time. Does my hon. Friend agree that looking at that issue could help?
Alison Thewliss
Yes, absolutely. There are 40 places in that nursery facility—it is a nursery, not a crèche, and there is no drop-in. I went to inquire whether it might be possible to bring my children down during the Scottish summer holidays, and it was not. Another limitation is that the nursery is for children up to the age of five; if they are older than that, there is nowhere they can go.
It is unfair of us to ask members of our or the building’s staff to look after our children while we nip off to vote. That is not what they are here to do; they are here to do their job, and childcare does not form part of that—I think we would also find that was true if we looked at their IPSA job descriptions. The nursery is also incredibly expensive, so it is not accessible to the vast number of staff in this building. In addition, there are only 40 places. Given the number of women and family members who serve this building, that is woefully short of what is required.
I was glad that the hon. Lady mentioned the staff in this building, whether they work for Hansard, serve food or work as cleaners. They are required to work when we are required to work, and that is also not family-friendly for them. Indeed, it is even truer for them, because they do not get the benefit of the expenses that we get as part of our duties in the House. We need to be mindful of them and of the family-unfriendliness of the House to the wider staff population.
I want to mention breastfeeding because the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) mentioned it. As far as I am concerned, the appropriate time and place to feed a baby is when it is hungry, regardless of when and where that may be. I have breastfed at Hampden Park in the middle of a football crowd, at bus stops and anywhere else my baby has been hungry. As a Glasgow city councillor, I breastfed my child in meetings, including committee meetings, and nobody had a problem with that. My baby was happy, it was not crying and it was not disruptive, because it was being fed. That was true of both my children. That issue needs to be better understood.
There is also an issue about the culture in this building and the way people behave. As far as the young researchers who come here are concerned, that is perhaps the way things have always been. However, I was at a reception earlier, and there was wine on the table. That was a lunch time. Is that really appropriate? Is the culture we want to encourage in this building that people go for a glass of wine at lunch time or at a dinner reception, or that people stay late and go to the bars between votes? That is not a family-friendly culture either, and it is not a good place for the building where laws are made to be. We perhaps need to consider that as well.
The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised the issue of sharing positions. There are issues around that, and we are elected to serve, so we need to do that. However, I believe the French Parliament has the “suppléant” system, under which those who are elected have someone who follows on behind them. If they become a Minister, that person steps in to cover their constituency duties. We could perhaps look at that example of something another Parliament does as one potential model, although it is not the exact model, because we are talking about something different.
Mrs Miller
I have been reflecting on what the hon. Lady has been saying. Many of the working parents listening to the debate will not be able to take their children, including those who require breastfeeding, into work. Does she agree that, by making this place more family-friendly in the first place, the requirement for us to bring children into work would be less acute? I speak as a mum of three, who came into the House in 2005, when my youngest was three, so I have lived the experiences she has talked about.
Alison Thewliss
We could set an example as a workplace where children are seen as part of the wider family of the people who work here. For me as a parent, it would be ideal if all workplaces, if necessary, had some way of ensuring children are looked after. That might involve flexible working hours, and there are many workplaces where people can have flexible hours and where that is encouraged. We need to think about the message this place sends out and the way we do our business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts talked a little about the way the Scottish Parliament works and its debates are conducted. There are stricter time limits there. Members might say that that would mean they did not get to say all they wanted to say in a debate, but it does encourage people to be a bit more focused. For example, we would not have the situation we had during the debate on the Scotland Bill last night, when somebody without a great specific interest in the issue talked for nearly half an hour, eating up all the time for debate. The Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament would take a much stricter line on such behaviour, and that is perhaps something we could look at. In the interests of greater efficiency in debates, it would also be helpful to know the business further ahead of time, because we do not get the opportunity to plan for it. When things come up at the very last minute, as they often do, we are forced to rush from one place to another to try to be there for debates.
Having said that, I do not want to take up everybody else’s time in the debate, so I will leave it at that. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley again for raising this important issue.
Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for securing this wonderful debate. The contributions have been of high quality, and I hope that Professor Childs’s inquiry will make substantive proposals on where the reform process should go next.
I want to share a few reflections on my experience as the mum of two children under five. I passionately agree with sentiments that have been expressed about the need for this place to reflect the country. If we do not look like the country and offer working practices that appeal to it, we will never attract the talent and diversity we need or truly represent the United Kingdom. That, for me, is at the heart of the debate.
I pay tribute to past Members, and some who are still in this place, including you, Mr Hamilton, for their hard work and the hard-fought battles they have won. They have made Parliament a far more family-friendly place than it would have been 20 years ago, and certainly 50 years ago. I benefit from that work, but we cannot stop at where we are, and we certainly cannot go back. These debates and the work of Professor Childs are important to make the House of Commons a beacon of best practice. We should be ahead of the game, not behind the curve, which is where I feel that we currently are. After five months here, it does not feel like a very family-friendly place.
Sir Simon Burns
I agree with the hon. Lady, but how can we avoid the trap that when we set an example, we will get things that many people in other workplaces will not get, so the changes will be seen just as Members of Parliament looking after their own and getting privileges, for want of a better word, that other people will never get?
Jo Cox
That is a great intervention. First, we are behind the curve compared with working practice in much of industry, and the charitable and public sectors, and that is a problem. Secondly, if we act differently and change the culture and working practices here, we can change how others operate. We should do that, because we are here to change and improve the United Kingdom.
Women are already under-represented here, but women with children are even less well represented. Research in 2012 found that 45% of male Members of Parliament had children compared with 28% of women. I do not think that parents of any background are attracted to this place, and that is a problem.
My experience of being a parent—I think that this is true for men and women—is that I have changed beyond measure. I understand how hard it is to be a parent, and to balance trying to earn an income and to be a good mum with caring responsibilities for elderly relatives. Such experiences will make people in this place better law makers, so we must attract women, and both women and men who are parents. I want to be the Member of Parliament for my home town in Yorkshire, but I also want to be a mum, and I do not think anyone in this place should have to make a choice about that. It should be possible to be both, but currently it is quite hard to get it right. I share the sentiments that have been expressed about that situation.
All of us who are Members of Parliament knew the working deal when we applied for the job. People come here with their eyes open, but I had not realised quite how hard things would be. I am desperate to encourage people to apply for this job, but we must make it more appealing. The experience has been quite hard—getting home after midnight and not seeing the kids for four or five nights in a week is tough. The unpredictability of the business of the House is a challenge. I have probably spent five hours in the past couple of weeks trying to organise childcare because there were changes affecting votes and business, and whether something was on or off the Whip. That was such a headache, and while I know that every working parent in the country has headaches, I do not think that we need to do things in that way. We can be much more effective.
I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about not having a crèche here. My kids are regularly dragged here, and then I have to ask a member of staff to look after them when I run in to vote. If there were a nice place for them to go where they had mates and toys, that would be such a relief for me. I think we can be flexible about breastfeeding. I breastfed on demand for four years, probably, and it is doable. It is possible to be discreet about it; there is no need to be overt. Lots of places of work offer that opportunity. We should take on the popular press if it is critical and say, “This is what women do; get over it.” It is good for children, so we should advocate it.
More efficient management of business would be a good thing. I agree that there could be shorter time limits on interventions and speeches, and that points could be made much more effectively and business could be more efficient. The European Parliament also does that. We should look to the best practice in other Parliaments, as well as in industry and the charitable sector, which are ahead of us. I welcome the debate and Professor Childs’s work.
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
If the next speaker is brief, we can fit in another.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this important debate. I stand with her against the abuse that was directed towards her recently and praise her courage in standing up to bullies. She is a great example.
As part of being more family-friendly, MPs should be able to be good employers to their staff who have roles as family members and carers. It is vital for MPs to be good employers and to set an example, but the opportunity to do that is being denied to us in a number of ways. MPs’ staff take on a heavy workload with many stresses to support our work. Sometimes they are as stressed as we are, and they are also husbands, wives, daughters, sons and parents, with the responsibilities and occasional emergencies associated with that. A couple of years ago a staff member of mine suddenly needed compassionate or carer’s leave because of a family medical emergency. Of course she took the leave—I told her to take it—but as she was a vital member of my team dealing with case work, I needed to cover her role. I was appalled to learn from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority that our staff contracts do not cover compassionate or caring leave.
MPs should be able to be good employers and to offer leave to carers. As my hon. Friend said, how can we talk to big business about what it should do if we do not hold ourselves up as a good example? At a recent meeting on carer’s leave, I heard of the good example set by Centrica, which won a best for carers and eldercare award from Carers UK for its excellent policies. It rightly believes that supporting carers reduces turnover and cuts recruitment and training costs. It also has an employee-led carers network. MPs should be able to support the carers among their staff, and IPSA’s policy should allow for carer’s leave. We used to be able to give such leave before IPSA changed that—the old contracts allowed it.
I hope that the House will raise that matter with IPSA and ensure that we can offer what a caring employer should be able to do for its staff who are carers. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to include that issue alongside the many others that she has been asked to think about, and to help to ensure that it is put to IPSA.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I am fairly new to the House, having replaced Dame Dawn Primarolo, who came to the House in 1987 as a young woman with a young child. That was unusual at the time, when there were only 44 women MPs. I know from the work she did and led, and the work of the all-party group on women in Parliament, how much progress has been made. I am certainly a beneficiary of that, including in my constituency, which selected another woman, with three dependent children of school age. I hope to follow my predecessor’s example and am delighted to be part of the debate.
I am the mother of three boys aged 16, 13 and 10. I understand that it is quite unusual to turn up here with children already at school. I agree that one of the great things about joining this place has been the reaction among families in Bristol. My children’s friends, and the teachers and support staff from their schools, have stopped them in the street—it is quite emotional—to say, “Isn’t it fantastic what your mum is doing?” Local journalists have said to me on the side, quietly, “How are you going to manage it? That’s quite impressive.” The reaction from wider society to a woman joining Parliament at this stage with growing children has been a real shock to me. It has been a pleasure to take responsibility for making it easier and to say to people, “Actually, a lot of people leave home during the week to do their job.”
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way when time is short. I concur with all the comments made about family-friendliness with regard to children, but looking at it from another angle, does my hon. Friend agree that MPs who are carers of other family members also need time to talk and for family time at the end of the day? For instance, my husband was very ill with cancer last year and needed attention. He does not need a crèche in this place, but other family members certainly have needs.
Karin Smyth
I absolutely agree. I will come on to make a similar point about looking after older people.
From the mouths of babes: in the summer, my 10-year-old said to me that a boy in his class told him that he does not see his dad in the morning because he leaves Bristol before he gets up, that he gets back from work late, at 10 o’clock, and that he is away at work five days a week. I have generally been able to get home on a Thursday to pick up my 10-year-old, so I take the point made by others that some people have it worse than many of us. We are sometimes able to flex our working days and to plan around our home life. I think my little 10-year-old suddenly thought to himself, “I’m a bit better off than many others.”
I said that I was going to mention caring for older people. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) made a good point about caring for spouses and other family members. That is very important, especially for people in their 50s and 60s.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) about the culture here, particularly on a Wednesday, when there is a noticeable difference in the number of photographers, journalists and lobby groups—particularly young men—in this place. That reflects the fact that family-friendliness is about not only MPs and perceptions of privilege, but the wider political culture in which we operate. I praise our journalists, photographers, lobbyists and so on for their work, and I hope that by having this debate, we lend some support to that wider movement.
There are lessons to be learned from the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments about the predictability of the agenda. As the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) said, we should commend political parties. It was only through all-women shortlists that the Labour party was able to force itself to take the issue seriously and to build a weight of numbers. The Conservative A-list has also helped. We must welcome the number of women who have come into Parliament as Scottish National party Members. There is a good opportunity for Parliament to lead on this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Fabian Hamilton (in the Chair)
Order. According to my calculations, each of the Front-Bench speakers has about nine minutes.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my Select Committee colleague and fellow feminist, for securing this debate.
This building—this institution—was not built with women or families in mind. I direct Members’ attention to the Lady Members’ Room, to which I was introduced in my first week here. It appears to be a place with comfortable chairs that harks back to the days when women were expected to iron and adorn themselves with doilies—lovely, I am sure, but I am quite confident that that would not be seen in the men’s rooms.
This House ought to consider the reality that there are currently more male MPs than there have ever been female MPs. That is an astounding statistic and things cannot continue like this. What does that say to women and girls? What will the gradual effect be on the idea of women in powerful positions in the world? We must educate women and girls, and also men and boys, and show that this place is representative of society as a whole, but we can do that only when it becomes so.
Barbara Keeley
One morning I found an SNP MP ironing in the Lady Members’ Room, so the hon. Lady is quite right.
Angela Crawley
We all need to iron; it is not gender-specific.
What message does this place send to young people wishing to start families? It is, “Politics is not for you.” This place will be representative of only certain sections of society if we dismiss the role of parenting or undermine it by indicating that the House is only for the big boys or people who can, as the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) said, get out of their beds earlier or travel down the night before. Those attitudes, and many like them, are the very reason—
Sir Simon Burns
I do not want the hon. Lady to misrepresent what I said. I was talking about how the hours on a Monday could involve us starting from 11.30 am, as we do on Tuesday and Wednesday. It is self-evident that in order to go to work on Monday morning, Members who are not based in London would either have to come down to London the night before, which is not very family-friendly, or to get up early on Monday morning. That is just a fact of life.
Angela Crawley
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I do not need a lecture on the geography of this country and how difficult it is for Members from rural and urban communities to get here.
Angela Crawley
I will continue. The right hon. Gentleman’s attitude only reaffirms the need for this debate.
To be clear, this is not about questioning the commitment of female Members—or, indeed, any Members—to their jobs. When will this place begin to advocate a greater emphasis on shared parenting or consider additional caring responsibilities?
My colleagues on the Women and Equalities Committee will be all too familiar with my ability to champion Scotland as a beacon, and this is an area in which there has been more progress than in the House of Commons. The Scottish Parliament sits until 5 pm each day, whereas this House can sit as late as 11 pm, or continue for even longer. Voting in the Scottish Parliament takes seconds, while voting in this House can take anything up to 20 minutes. The Scottish Parliament has a crèche that is open until the close of business, and it sits for three days a week, allowing Members two days in their constituency properly to fulfil their roles. The Scottish Government have one of the first gender-balanced Cabinets in the world. All three party leaders in Scotland are female. None of them were backroom boys, and I am sure that they would not like to be known as such, although I am not suggesting that that was what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) meant. Thirty-five per cent. of Members of the Scottish Parliament are female, and the SNP will go into the Holyrood elections with more female candidates than ever before.
When will this place begin to consider the long-term, sustained impact of juggling professional and personal commitments? How have the strongest relationships surpassed many of the challenges that the job entails? How do we continue as a family-friendly, positive working environment? When will this House consider the reality behind the rhetoric? On gender-balanced Cabinets, smashing the gender pay gap, reducing inequalities and dealing with maternity discrimination, is this place really setting the standard? Let us get this House in order first.
If we present everyone with the reality of long hours, arduous travel and endless hours of debating, the House may never progress. This House must be more family-friendly, diverse and progressive. Most importantly, it must also be representative, so let us get this House in order.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this important debate and thank her for her excellent contribution.
Last night, I left the House at about 10.40 pm, after votes. I understand that that is decidedly early for this place, but it is even earlier than the leaving times of the Doorkeepers, the catering staff, librarians and all the other staff on the parliamentary estate who work around the operations of the political business of the day. The reality is that, when parliamentary life is so unpredictable, neither staff nor MPs can easily plan their real lives outside this place. The concept of family-friendliness is often seen in narrow terms—that it is the women MPs who have children who want a system to suit them. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said we should have a people-friendly Parliament. We should have a system that suits as many people as possible and that suits their lives as much as possible, and that includes the staff who work here as much as the MPs, the men as much as the women, and those with family caring responsibilities other than children.
Making parliament more family friendly is a crucial step towards achieving equal representation for women in politics, which, unfortunately, we are far from achieving. In 2015, only 29% of Members of Parliament are female. The UK is doing worse on female representation than Uganda, Zimbabwe and many of our European neighbours. The good news is that we have increased the number of female MPs since the election in May, and we have now overtaken Afghanistan—just.
Equally important to this debate is the motherhood gap in the House of Commons. That is to say, female MPs are significantly less likely than our male colleagues to have children. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Jo Cox) transposed the figures a little, but the studies conducted during the previous Parliament showed that although only 28% of male MPs had no children, the figure for women was much higher—45%—which suggests that women view the life of an MP as incompatible with caring for a child. The system is geared towards the traditional view that parliamentarians are men with a wife at home to look after the children. There is no consideration of modern families that do not fit that outdated concept. The same goes for staff in this place. Are single parents, new parents and carers less likely to consider working on the parliamentary estate as a career when the system is so unpredictable? I do not know; perhaps the Minister does.
The Government have worked hard to present themselves as a modern, representative, “UK now” Government, but failing to take seriously such inherent issues in the system, which present themselves again and again, leaves our great Parliament looking more stuck in the dark ages than the gothic arches under which we sit. This matters, because a House of Commons that is truly representative of the population of the United Kingdom will be more attuned to the needs of the public. For example, it was following a surge in the number of women MPs entering Parliament 20 years ago that the gender pay gap started to be properly measured and began to close. Similarly, some of the issues that most desperately need addressing today are those that parents are acutely conscious of, such as the need for affordable childcare and the need to ensure that the housing market works for our children’s generation.
I thank all hon. Members who spoke today—particularly those who shared their personal experiences of how difficult the House can be for Members with children. I know that there is only a small sample of Members here today, but in a survey conducted by Mumsnet, which another colleague spoke about earlier, two thirds of MPs said that their job has a negative impact on their family life. One MP surveyed said:
“I have a two-year-old daughter and no-one cares if I don’t see her.”
Another senior MP said:
“I never saw my children grow up and I’ll regret this to the day I die.”
I think that is a terrible indictment of a modern working environment.
A number of excellent points have been made by colleagues today about how Parliament is failing to be family-friendly. If, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, councils can make accommodation to allow new mums to bring their babies into the chamber and, as has been mentioned, the European Parliament allows elected Members to breastfeed babies during debates, is it not time for this place to open itself up to a 21st-century way of working, rather than hide behind Victorian values?
Hon. Members said that the tabloid media might seek to undermine breastfeeding parents in this place. If breastfeeding continues to be viewed as the exception rather than the rule and does not become commonplace then, yes, it is open to ridicule.
Karin Smyth
It is not just about elected institutions. I served as a non-executive director of a primary care trust 10 years ago, and I was able to bring my young child along to health authority meetings and breastfeed without any fear of anything going wrong. A wide range of other bodies also manage to do the same.
Melanie Onn
There is nothing more to add to that; it is the perfect example of how it can work in different environments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley kindly credited me for proposing that parliamentary recesses coincide with the school holidays, but I do not think I was the first to propose that. We need to take a long, hard look at how we operate. It is ludicrous that we are about to go on recess, but half term was two weeks ago. I am not going to see my son for an extended period. I have been reduced to being a parent for three nights a week, which does not feel very satisfactory. As other hon. Members said, Scottish schools’ summer holiday periods coincide with just two weeks of parliamentary recess. Giving greater consideration to planning our sitting days around term times would greatly benefit not just MPs but House staff, but that does not seem to be forthcoming. The Government still have not announced the House’s recess dates for Easter, which is just four months away. Will the Minister tell us whether there is any justification for that, other than tradition?
This is not just a legislative Chamber but a workplace and, I think, a museum. We welcome visitors from around the world to view the Palace. We invite constituents, businesses and charities to meet us, so where are the signs for the baby changing facilities? Where are the designated areas for breastfeeding? We should be leading by example and showing what a modern working environment can be. How can we lecture employers on flexible working and childcare provision if we cannot get it right ourselves and do not even seem to be trying?
Professor Sarah Childs from the University of Bristol, who is here today, has been appointed to carry out an independent assessment of gender inequality in Parliament. When I last asked the Minister about what changes are being planned to make Parliament more family friendly, she just said that the Procedure Committee had looked at sitting hours and decided not to make further changes. In this debate, we have heard that there is a wide range of other issues that we should consider in the round. I hope the Minister agrees that, once the report is published, it is right and proper to have a debate in the Commons Chamber in Government time so we can properly debate its findings.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hamilton. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing this debate. Just six months into being a Member of Parliament, she has certainly made an impression on the House. She is right to say that this is not a partisan issue. I know she is a busy lady. She sits on the Women and Equalities Committee, and she is also a member of the Backbench Business Committee, which I believe is meeting at the same time as this debate, so she has had to sacrifice her presence there to be here. In its previous sitting, it seems that there was a minor fracas about international men’s day, which continued on “Daily Politics”. When I saw it, I wondered whether it had become a parliamentary version of “Snog Marry Avoid?” I do not expect her to say which it is.
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady widened the debate beyond MPs to the demands on all staff—particularly House staff. I pay tribute to all staff who help us in our roles as Members of Parliament. This issue matters to the House. Perhaps I should encourage the House of Commons authorities to make more widely known what happens in relation to flexible working, nurseries, childcare schemes in our unusual summer holidays, career breaks and so on. That information is useful, and I will ask the House authorities to extend it further and especially to new Members.
We should also recognise that we are employers in our own right, so we must be role models when we work with our staff. I tell my team off—I do not know whether they are watching—if they work later than a certain hour. I give them notice and tell them that if they keep doing it, I will have their keys removed and kick them out at a certain time. It matters that we are role models, as has been said many times already in this debate.
We are unique in a certain respect: although we should and do represent wider society, we are the masters and mistresses of our own destiny from the day we are elected until we put ourselves forward for re-election. We should consider how we perform our roles as parliamentarians. The issue is not about being superwoman or superman, but being conscious that we are representing people when we are in the Chamber, when we scrutinise legislation, when we become Ministers and when we work in our constituencies. Our party leaders expect us to be here to vote on important matters, but, as we have discussed in previous years, to some extent we can work with the usual channels to ensure we have a sensible, proactive family life. Although I do not have children, I believe that such accommodations are often willingly made.
Neil Gray
I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), who said that things were more difficult in the past. Thank goodness for technology. Those of us who are parents are able to use FaceTime, Skype and what have you to keep in touch with our children. Would it not be more appropriate for this House to use technology to enable us to work more effectively as representatives, rather than use technology as parents?
Dr Coffey
The House is using technology more and more, but the hon. Gentleman may want it to go further. I passed a colleague other day who was on FaceTime celebrating with their daughter the opening of her birthday presents. It was a sweet and charming moment and is something that simply was not available until recently.
I am conscious that I have to give some time to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, so I will try to get through a few of the issues raised in the debate. Quite a lot has been said about the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and people’s demands. It is important to ensure that the public understand that decisions about pay, pensions and expenses are made by IPSA, which puts its schemes out for consultation. It is statutorily obliged in the first year of a Parliament to undertake a specific review, to which I strongly urge Members to respond.
I made personal representations in the previous Parliament about colleagues who live on the fringes of London and yet have to dash for the train rather than participate in Adjournment debates, for example. The challenge of maintaining a family while working here and in the constituency is well known, and IPSA has changed following the initial backlash after the 2009 expenses issues. Beginning with a strict regime, I believe that it has made a bit of a journey and I encourage it to consider such matters more.
Specific issues were raised by, among others, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and I will take them up with IPSA. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made a particularly useful suggestion about changing how IPSA reports on childcare. On media responsibility and how expenses are reported, I often say that I claim the expenses necessary in order for me to fulfil my role to my constituents, and my newspaper has finally got that fact.
On timetabling, the hon. Lady suggested that she would probably sit for longer in order to spend less time here. There was an active debate in 2012, about which I had a brief conversation with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), about the fact that the Select Committee on Procedure considered the matter in the previous Parliament. Sitting hours are very much a matter for the House, and the Procedure Committee is the right avenue to re-explore them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns) referred to the idea of an earlier start on a Monday, but I am conscious of the fact that people come from the four corners of the United Kingdom and that Sunday as a special family day is important for them. That is a strong argument and is why the House voted unanimously in 2012 to keep the later Monday start, while protecting the current eight and a half hours of sitting time.
On the other Parliaments in the UK, which sit for three days and then have two constituency or family days, I suggest to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and the others who made that point that I find amazing what we manage to squeeze into four or four and a half days. There is then the suggestion that the House should sit for more weeks, but I am unsure whether that would lead to the right balance. The way that the parliamentary timetable has evolved allows people to be here for three days a week in most weeks if that that is what they choose to do; the issue is about judging what is best for oneself.
It is important to stress that a recess is not a holiday. Many people use recesses to undertake constituency work, and it is not right to suggest that we are not in touch with our constituents if we are not in our constituencies on a Friday as we have decided to be here for a private Member’s Bill. I have always felt that if Parliament is sitting, the reasons for my being here and not necessarily in my constituency are valid.
On knowing about business slightly further ahead of time, I do not have the Chief Whip’s understanding of exactly what is happening in both Houses, but we do, to be fair, try to give two weeks’ notice of the business being conducted. Some of that is because the timetabling at our end depends on what is happening in other House, and the relationship is not always easy to predict far in advance, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley may recognise following recent debates in the other place.
The decision in the previous Parliament to switch the Tuesday sitting hours from 2.30 pm to 11.30 am was close and was made on the basis of a majority of only 15. There is a strong view that what might work for people who are based in London does not necessarily work for people based elsewhere, and that debate may continue in this Parliament.
On voting, it is important that we keep debates with votes. I understand that the Speaker, in conjunction with the Chief Whips of each party, has made arrangements regarding young children going into the Division Lobbies. I am not aware of any issues. Regarding time limits on speeches, I do not like the Scottish or European Parliaments’ way of allocating time to parties, because it really impacts on the opportunities for Members from smaller parties to contribute to debates.
Melanie Onn
I am grateful. The problem with the Speaker and the Whips making arrangements is that there are no hard and fast rules. Unless such things are laid down, it is not always clear how people can seek to make this place work better for them.
Dr Coffey
I will ensure that I speak to the Opposition Whips so that they have a session with their MPs to discuss the matter, as has already happened on our side.
Moving on to breastfeeding, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford referred to the Betty Boothroyd test, which I believe still stands. We may talk about it being the 21st century, but this is a workplace and it is not something that people enjoy wider than that. I do not believe that there is a big view in the House to make the shift at this time.
Probably the most difficult issue is that of recesses, school holidays and so on. I have done quite a lot of work on this and noted that the Scottish and Northern Irish seem to follow similar holiday patterns and the English and Welsh follow theirs. I cannot go into too much detail now as time is against me, but the business managers are listening. Some 10% of MPs are significantly disrupted by this matter, and it so happens that there was a three-week overlap this summer between the end of the recess and the beginning of Scottish schools restarting. That is something that we will consider carefully. Conferences tend to be booked five years in advance, and I understand that conversations are under way to try to see what we can do in the next Parliament.
I am not sure that I have been able to cover quite everything. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley on job sharing, which would be very difficult. On maternity and parental leave, however, the coalition Government brought in the concept of shared parental leave. We are masters and mistresses of our own destiny, so it is up to us to decide how we address that, but it has always been more than well accommodated by Government. I am sure that the House will continue have further debates on this and other matters, and I appreciate Members’ representations today.
Jess Phillips
I thank all hon. Members who gave their views today. I welcome some of the Deputy Leader of the House’s assertions, in particular around the limited holiday possibilities for the Scottish representatives. The debate will not go away today; it will continue year in, year out. For every push back from the Government Benches, we need to ask ourselves, “Why?” Nobody has died. My mother always used to say to me, “Nothing bad happened if nobody lost an eye,” which did not help me when my son went to have an eye operation. There always seems to be push back on why these things cannot happen.
Jess Phillips
I recognise that the Government are not alone in controlling what happens here, but this place is not representative at the moment. That is a simple fact. All of today’s speeches from people with caring responsibilities, be that for their children or elderly relatives or partners who may have been unwell, make that perfectly clear. When I leave this place, I want to see 50:50 representation of women and men.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Barnett Floor (Wales)
(8 years, 11 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
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a Barnett floor for Wales.
It is a privilege to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate, which is on an important topic affecting funding for Wales in general and my constituents in particular. We all know how difficult the funding settlements have been in recent years. The Welsh Government have faced great funding challenges, and local councils, including my own Torfaen County Borough Council, are struggling to make ends meet and doing their best to protect front-line services when less and less money is coming from Westminster.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the losses that local authorities have experienced and will continue to experience. In 2014-15, Neath Port Talbot’s budget was cut by £17 million. It has been predicted that, from April 2016, Neath Port Talbot will lose £18 million or possibly more, depending on the autumn statement. Public services have already been cut severely—
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Please make an intervention not a speech.
Christina Rees
I am simply making the point that we should not suffer from the Barnett formula.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Neath Port Talbot example further illustrates and reinforces the point that I made about Torfaen.
The debate deals with an aspect of Westminster funding, the so-called Barnett floor. As Members are aware, Joel—later Lord—Barnett introduced the Barnett formula in 1978, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of the devolution debate of that era. He did not originally intend that it should become a permanent feature, yet here, some 37 years later, it still governs the Wales-Westminster fiscal relationship.
More recently, in 2009, the interim report of the Holtham commission, “Funding devolved government in Wales: Barnett and beyond”, was published. It suggested that Wales was underfunded.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the 2009 Holtham report suggesting the implementation of a floor, it is frustrating that six years later we have still not seen it happen?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I will come to that in a moment.
The report suggested that Wales was underfunded by £300 million a year compared with how much English regions would receive were the Barnett formula applied to them. In 2010, when the final Holtham report, “Fairness and accountability: a new funding settlement for Wales”, was published, the underfunding gap was even wider, at about £400 million a year, using a needs-based formula.
As my hon. Friend has just pointed out, to prevent a further decline in relative funding per head for Wales, the Holtham interim report had called for a Barnett floor as a temporary solution until a new needs-based formula could be agreed.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I take my hon. Friend’s thoughts back to 2008, when I was a Wales Office Minister? The budget for Wales had gone up from £7 billion to £14 billion; by the time we left office, it was £16 billion. It has now decreased significantly. Any false arguments over additional tax-raising powers are nothing compared with the fact that we now need the Barnett floor. When Labour was in government, it was Barnett-plus; we now need a Barnett floor.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Record investment in public services in Wales was made under the Labour Government. Indeed, the Conservatives were so impressed that in September 2007 the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—now Chancellor—adopted our spending plans for the next couple of years. That is how impressed they were, although these days they seem to be taking a different view of that record investment.
The Barnett floor works by multiplying positive funding increments to Wales not only by the comparability factor and population share, but by a further percentage increment. The qualifier is that the formula is not intended to work in reverse, with negative funding increments, because that would simply widen the underfunding gap.
In October 2010, the National Assembly for Wales unanimously endorsed a motion for the implementation of a funding floor, to be followed by wider funding reform. Nevertheless, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 did not deliver.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be acting with greater urgency on implementing the funding floor, given the Holtham commission statement that Wales could be underfunded by between £5.3 billion and £8.5 billion over the 10 years to 2020? Does he also agree that the Government’s lack of action on the matter suggests a lack of interest in achieving a funding floor and fairer funding for Wales?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely. The matter is urgent, but we are concerned about the Government’s lack of interest. The coalition’s programme for government in the previous Parliament stated that the priority was to reduce the deficit and that changes to the system could await stabilisation of the public finances, although why exactly the coalition Government were incapable of paying sufficient attention to Wales to deal with the issue—or even to start dealing with it—remains entirely unclear.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Given that the Barnett formula has been in question since 1978, why did the hon. Gentleman’s party not rectify the Welsh funding shortfall while it was in government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I repeat to the hon. Lady a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies): in 1997 to 2010, we had what he called “Barnett-plus”, which was record investment in public services in Wales, to the benefit of both my constituents and hers.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I had the privilege of succeeding my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore as a Wales Office Minister and I held that post in the run-up to the 2010 general election. One of the things that we were proud of was the firm commitment in our manifesto to address that very issue.—Unfortunately, we lost the election.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In 2015, we also had a manifesto commitment on the Barnett floor; but unfortunately, we were again not in government after the election.
In 2012, consideration was given to how Wales’s share of future funding would not fall again when public expenditure started to rise—the so-called “Barnett squeeze”. In the autumn of that year, the UK Government formally agreed that there was a squeeze and that such convergence had taken place. They said that they would review the position at each spending review, to assess whether it would recur, and address the issue. Alas, I am afraid that they did not.
On 8 July, the Government’s lack of interest in Wales was perhaps summed up in the Chancellor’s Budget speech. In one short reference, he said:
“In Wales, we are honouring our commitments to a funding floor and to more devolution there, and investing in important new infrastructure such as the M4 and the Great Western line.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 329.]
That promise came five years after the Assembly had voted unanimously on the matter—five years later. Put simply, the people of Wales have waited long enough for the UK Government to deliver.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman warmly on his first Westminster Hall debate. I am sympathetic to fairer funding for Wales in a needs-based system, but should not any adjustment or floor to make things fair come from the financial settlement of any country that has gained under the current, outdated Barnett formula?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, during this Parliament, we have an opportunity to debate all such matters. The Scotland Bill continued its passage through the House only yesterday. This is the time to look at fair funding throughout the United Kingdom.
I ask the Minister to answer some specific questions. First, the Secretary of State for Wales said in the spring that the Government would deliver on a Barnett floor by the autumn. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us a more exact timescale, given that we are already into November.
Will the Minister confirm whether the proposals on the Barnett floor will be as proposed by the Holtham commission? Will he update us on what the indexation figure is likely to be? I hope that he will give us a cast-iron guarantee that the Holtham recommendation on a Barnett floor will be implemented in full before any further debate on fair funding for Wales. In this Parliament, as I said a moment ago, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill provide an ideal opportunity for such a debate to take place.
On Second Reading of the Scotland Bill on 8 June, I said that the Government must not see the different nations of the United Kingdom entirely in isolation; they must look at changes across the board and how they impact on each other. That said, the devolution settlement has become a central part of our constitution and we should not forget the positive benefits that devolution has brought since Labour introduced it in 1999.
The great socialist thinker, R. H. Tawney, thought that dispersal of power was best because
“It makes people more accessible to each other than a system where power is highly centralised and society is a tapestry of authoritarian links”.
That notion of accessibility, with decisions being made closest to the people they affect, has a modern resonance. He also said:
“The only sound test, in the first place, of a political system, is its practical effect on the lives of human beings”.
That is absolutely right and that is why today’s debate is so important.
The idea of a Barnett floor is not an abstract notion; it is a practical step that could make a difference to people’s lives and the services that they rely on. It has a short and medium-term aspect. I accept that it has less impact in a declining budget, but the principle should be implemented as soon as possible for its impact on positive increments. Put simply, the Government should act, and act now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, for what I think is the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) on securing the important debate, particularly as it is his first Westminster Hall debate. We have had an interesting discussion and I am grateful to the hon. Members for Neath (Christina Rees), for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) for their contributions. I will do my best to answer all the points made.
I want to underline that the Government remain committed to delivering the St David’s day Command Paper, which will create a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales. That, of course, includes the funding floor that the hon. Member for Torfaen and others have called for. The St David’s day agreement led to the draft Wales Bill, which was published on 20 October and is being considered as we speak.
The Bill will build a stronger Wales in a strong United Kingdom by devolving important powers over energy, transport and local government and Assembly elections. It will also make devolution work better, as the Assembly and the Welsh Government will be clear about the powers they have and the challenges to which they need to be able to respond.
I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the introduction of a funding floor alongside the next spending review. It is worth clarifying the current positon of funding, which is an ever-dynamic environment. The Holtham commission’s report, to which the hon. Member for Torfaen and others referred, was established by the Welsh Government to analyse the relative level of needs in Wales compared with England in 2009 and 2010.
The work by Professor Holtham and his commission has had a significant impact on informing the debate in Wales and I pay tribute to him for his work. The report set out a range from 114% to 117% of comparable English funding per head in which it thought that funding for the Welsh Government would be “fair.”
The report also highlighted that the relative levels of funding provided to the Welsh Government had converged towards the average level of funding for comparable activities in England since the start of devolution. It was therefore interesting to hear the hon. Member for Ogmore talk about the increase in the Welsh block grant from £7 billion to £14 billion, because relative funding for Wales in that period deteriorated. It was from the commission’s range that the Welsh Government claimed that they were underfunded by £300 million back in 2010.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the Barnett squeeze, the coalition Government conceded that that had happened in 2012. Why has nothing been done in three years?
Alun Cairns
I will come to that point in a moment, but it is worth remembering that the Command Paper, which was agreed by all parties, was published earlier this year and that committed specifically to acting within the next spending review period. As I said, the Barnett floor and spending commitments for Wales will be published alongside that.
The £300 million spoken about compared with a budget of roughly £15 billion. It is also worth noting that when Holtham reported, there was total identifiable spending in Wales of approximately £29 billion.
A lot has changed since 2010, both financially and politically. A joint statement in 2012 by both Governments recognised the resonance of this issue in Wales. In particular, it recognised the Welsh Government’s concerns that their funding would converge further towards English levels. However, joint work with the Welsh Government at the previous spending review confirmed that funding is not forecast to converge during the period to 2015-16. That refutes the points made by several Opposition Members; that was joint work agreed with the Welsh Government. Furthermore, Holtham’s logic also illustrated that the relative level of funding per head had risen, or diverged to use the technical term, and it is now in the range that the commission regarded as fair.
Liz Saville Roberts
None the less, the Minister cannot ignore the 78% of 10,000 people responding to a YouGov poll who said that Wales should be funded to the equivalent level of Scotland, which would bring in an extra £1.2 billion.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but Scotland’s devolution settlement, and therefore its financial settlement, is naturally different. However, I pay tribute to her for her earlier point, when she asked why Labour did not act in its 13 years in government, when there was a greater divergence between the relative funding in Wales and England, and Wales was getting worse off.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I apologise for joining the debate late and I commend the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for introducing it. Given Labour’s 13 years of inaction on this issue and the clear commitment the Chancellor has made to dealing with it, may I ask the Minister what the Labour party’s position is on the Barnett funding floor and the Barnett formula in general? I thought that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to tear it up.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I smiled as various points were being made in the Chamber that underlined not only the inaction during that period of Labour Administration, but the differing messages that are coming from Labour in Westminster and in Cardiff Bay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the first point, given the intervention from the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) and the Minister’s response, I assume that they are now praising the last Labour Government’s investment and not trying to make out that it was our spending that caused the crash. On the second point, it is quite clear that we see the Barnett floor as a useful first step towards a needs-based solution in the future. There is no inconsistency in that.
Alun Cairns
The position has already moved since the hon. Gentleman’s first contribution to this debate.
To make some progress on the specific points raised, a lot of questions were asked about the timing. I remind hon. Members that earlier this year in the St David’s day Command Paper we committed, for the very first time, to introducing a floor to the level of relative funding provided to the Welsh Government, alongside the spending review. This Conservative Government made that historic commitment and we absolutely stand by it. On the question of urgency, we stand by what we said before the election and will deliver that.
The right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has admitted that when the Labour party was last in power and he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury he knew that the Barnett formula
“wasn’t fair to Wales and there would need to be changes”,
yet Labour did absolutely nothing about it. I will not accept any crocodile tears from Opposition Members. Although the right hon. Member for Leigh has since made that explicit comment, no action was taken in that whole period other than a diverging funding settlement for Wales relative to the rest of the United Kingdom.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It strikes me when listening to the Minister that I am not sure whether we are extravagant spenders or penny-pinching individuals. Whichever it is, the money went up from £7 billion to £16 billion, and that does not sound like either to me. Will the Minister answer one point he has not yet answered: does he not agree with Holtham that Wales is underfunded to the tune of £300 million a year?
Alun Cairns
The figures of £7 billion to £16 billion have been repeated time and again, but Holtham identified that during that period Wales’s relative position was worse. As I have said, the changes made over the past five years have put current spending in Wales within the Holtham range, as acknowledged by the Welsh Government.
Carolyn Harris
Will the Minister assure this Chamber that Wales will not be further disadvantaged in the upcoming spending review?
Alun Cairns
The spending review is a matter for the Chancellor. We, as a Conservative Government, are delivering on our commitment to introduce the Barnett floor, as we have announced, alongside the spending review. That commitment was repeated in our manifesto and the floor will be introduced, as announced.
Wayne David
The operation of the Barnett formula and the Barnett floor is complicated, but does the Minister accept—this is fundamental to our whole discussion—that at a time of falling public expenditure, when cuts are being made, the Barnett floor is not really an issue? It is only an issue at a time of increasing public expenditure. It is relatively easy for the Government to introduce the Barnett floor now, and I suggest they should, but its real impact will be in the future, when expenditure increases.
Alun Cairns
I find it a bit rich that the hon. Gentleman is complaining that a Barnett floor has yet to be introduced when we are committed to introducing it. We said we would do it last March and in our manifesto, and we will introduce it alongside the next spending review. When he was part of an Administration, although Wales’s relative position was deteriorating, absolutely nothing was done to introduce a Barnett floor.
Hon. Members will be aware that since 2010 significant commitments have been made, beyond the Barnett formula, to back the Welsh economy. Those include a commitment to fund and upgrade the great western main line through to Swansea and a significant contribution to the cost of the upgrade and electrification of the valley lines, reinforcing the UK Government’s support for improving infrastructure in Wales. Two years ago, the Welsh Government were given early access to capital borrowing powers to use for M4 improvements.
Craig Williams
That is a very interesting point. Not only have we promised the funding floor—and we will deliver it—but we have given the Welsh Government access to borrow money to fix a horrendous problem in south Wales, namely the M4 congestion, by delivering an M4 relief road, yet they are still dithering.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I can hardly speak to business people or people who travel the border regularly without their complaining about the delays around Newport. We urge the Welsh Government to take the strongest action possible to complete the job of bridging the M4 around the south of Newport.
A new prison is being built in Wrexham, in a £212 million project supporting over 1,000 jobs. Through tax devolution we are empowering the Welsh Government with further levers to support and encourage the growth of the Welsh economy. Business rates have now been fully devolved, something I hope Opposition Members will acknowledge. Stamp duty and landfill tax will be devolved in 2018, as has already been committed to.
We would like progress on the devolution of a portion of income tax, as specified in the Wales Act 2014. Tax devolution will make the Welsh Government responsible for raising more of the money that they spend. Excluding Welsh rates of income tax, the Assembly will be responsible for approximately 10% of all taxes collected in Wales. The introduction of the Welsh rate of income tax would make the Assembly responsible for twice as much, or approximately another £2 billion in revenue. The Government will implement the commitments of the St David’s day Command Paper to build a stronger, clearer and fairer devolution settlement for Wales.
Jonathan Lord
I welcome everything the Minister is saying, but, to return to the Barnett floor, may I ask for an assurance that English taxpayers will not be disadvantaged by any adjustments or Barnett floor, and that any money to accommodate a Barnett floor will come from countries that get more than their fair share on a needs basis?
Alun Cairns
The specifics on that point will be outlined in the comprehensive spending review by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Alun Cairns
With the greatest respect, I need to make some progress in the limited time remaining.
Last month, we published the draft Wales Bill, a key part of providing a clearer devolution settlement. We all want a funding floor for Wales, and it is right that that is accompanied by the devolution of income tax powers, because, by raising more of the money they spend, the Assembly Government will be more accountable to the people of Wales. Since 2010, Wales has recorded the fastest growth per head in the UK outside London, demonstrating the dynamism of the funding and spending position. Wales had the joint fastest growth of all the regions and devolved nations in 2013, with gross value added growing by 3.4%, well ahead of the figure for the UK. It is now time to move the debate forward and encourage the Welsh Government to use both the powers they already have and the new ones they are gaining to drive further growth in the Welsh economy.
Some specific points were raised on funding for local authorities. That is a matter for the Welsh Government—they decide how much money should be distributed to local authorities. I know that many in my constituency complain about how the cake is sliced in Wales, but that is the responsibility of the Welsh Government and it would be improper were this Government to intervene in those sorts of issues.
I underline that this Government are absolutely committed to introducing the funding floor as stated in the St David’s day agreement. We will introduce it as part of and alongside the comprehensive spending review.
Question put and agreed to.
Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)
(8 years, 11 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
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of devolved administrations in UK renegotiation of EU membership.
This is the first time I have had the opportunity to lead a Westminster Hall debate—and the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. It is good to see the Minister again. I know he will have had a long day, but I am sure he is as delighted to see me again as I am to see him. The debate is timely; it is fortuitous that it has come about on a day when a great deal of attention has been paid to European Union renegotiation. I am sure the Prime Minister wrote his letter just in time for our debate. I was pleased to see it.
EU renegotiation will have a significant impact on all parts of the United Kingdom. We often forget in this place that the impact of EU laws does not begin and end in this House or in London; it goes out to all parts of the United Kingdom, not least the devolved Administrations. As I mentioned in the main Chamber earlier today, Scottish National party Members think there has been a sore lack of formal consultation. I am glad that the Minister spoke to Fiona Hyslop earlier today and that there is some merit in these Westminster Hall debates—they can prompt such things—but we need more in the way of formal consultation.
What a difference a year makes! Just last year, the Prime Minister told us that independence would risk Scotland’s place in the European Union, and now here we are, closer to exit than ever before. Having reflected briefly on that debate today, let me say that the Minister has his work cut out in keeping his allies on the Conservative Back Benches on side.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate about the UK’s possible exit from the European Union. There is a potential impact on businesses within the devolved regions. Is he aware that we, in Northern Ireland, are in a unique position because we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, which will remain within the European Union?
Ms Ritchie
There is also an impact in terms of the euro exchange rate mechanism. Does the hon. Gentleman have any comments on that?
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I want to talk today about all devolved Administrations, not only Scotland. I am particularly pleased to see Members here from Northern Ireland, Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Renegotiation will have a significant impact in Northern Ireland, not least given the particular situation of its land border with Ireland and the large number of jobs that depend on EU membership. That is why I am particularly keen for the UK Government to tell us what they will do to consult with Northern Irish Ministers and Welsh Ministers, not only Ministers in Scotland. The hon. Lady raises a valid point.
There is a key issue here: mutual respect. We should have mutual respect for all democratically elected Governments. The lack of a formal consultation so far has been nothing short of a democratic disgrace, especially given the significant impact that renegotiation will have. The first question I pose to the Minister is not about the consultation that has taken place. What formal consultation process—not a phone call—will there be as we take the Prime Minister’s letter today forward?
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
As a former special adviser who had the privilege of attending Joint Ministerial Committee meetings on Europe and enjoyed the contributions from Fiona Hyslop as a braveheart for Scotland, does the hon. Gentleman agree that that, as a formal structure, is perfunctory? It meets on a three-monthly or four-monthly basis, and no meaningful engagement can take place in that timetabled way when negotiations are proceeding.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as a former special adviser—a noble trade—who has taken part in Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. It is good that the Minister said today that this will be top of the agenda, but it is just not enough, given the immediacy. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point indeed.
I say to the Minister that he can win friends and influence people, should he just liaise with his colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We can look to Richard Lochhead, Europe’s longest-serving fisheries Minister, who has been making the case for farmers and fishermen, Aileen McLeod, who has been promoting Scotland’s world-class climate change action, or Roseanna Cunningham, who has been championing the European Alliance for Apprenticeships.
The EU matters to the devolved Administrations, and the agenda driven by the UK Independence party and Conservative Back Benchers just does not cut it. I will give the Minister a little point of information: UKIP has never saved its deposit in a parliamentary election in Scotland. That will gladden his heart; UKIP is almost as unpopular in Scotland as the Conservatives are.
Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. By the sound of it, he is not in favour of a referendum, but surely it is about time the British people had a say—and it is the British people. It is not just the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments or just the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh people; it is the English people too. This is a reserved matter, and surely it is right that it is taken on a whole-UK basis.
Stephen Gethins
Let me give the hon. Gentleman another point of information: the Scottish National party stood on a platform of not having a referendum. We won the election in Scotland—you didn’t. You had the worst election result since 1865. Unlike a number of other parties here, we are quite keen on maintaining our manifesto commitments, so we stuck to them. However, the referendum is taking place, and I will come to that in a minute because we have a few things you might want to listen to.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Can I make the point that no Member in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall is referred to as “you”? Thank you.
Stephen Gethins
Thank you. My apologies, Ms Dorries.
The Scottish Government set out renegotiation priorities in their agenda for EU reform, which I make Members aware of once again. I also refer Members to a speech made in June 2015 by Scotland’s First Minister, in which she looked at areas such as more local decision making on health, for example. The fact that the Scottish Government were not able to act on minimum pricing for alcohol was a disgrace: the democratically elected Scottish Government saw it as a particular priority to tackle a particular Scottish public health issue. The First Minister also looked at a single market in energy and digital services—especially our renewables industry, which has taken such a battering recently—and more local discretion in implementing regulation.
As part of our renegotiation, we need to look at how the devolved Administrations work and co-operate with member states. A few years ago, under the previous Labour Administration, a memo was leaked that showed devolved Ministers were not having an impact. In fact, one of them was being sent to the salle d’écoute—for Members whose French is not quite up to scratch, that is the listening room—which is no place for a Minister who oversaw areas such as agriculture and fisheries. Europe matters to the devolved Administrations. It matters in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, given the long land border and the ramifications for the Good Friday agreement and the common travel area. In Wales, up to 200,000 jobs are said to depend on EU membership.
Ms Ritchie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for being gracious in giving way again. Is he aware that my local council in Northern Ireland—Newry, Mourne and Down—held a significant conference two weeks ago, which was addressed by the shadow Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), on that very point? [Interruption.]
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House. We will suspend the sitting until after the last Division, as we do not know how many there will be. Could Members make their way back here as soon as possible? Thank you.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
As a result of the Division, this debate will now continue until 17.40. Four people have applied to speak after Mr Gethins has finished, so I am going to impose a voluntary time limit of five minutes per speech. If people adhere to that, the Minister and Mr Gethins will have adequate time to respond, but, of course, that is entirely up to you.
Stephen Gethins
Thank you, Ms Dorries. Before we went into the Division, I was talking about areas that the Scottish Government have identified where there could be reform, and a lot of that focused on areas for reform where powers could come back. I will come back to this point later, but if there are powers to come back, and if those powers directly relate to the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations, I hope that they will not be devolved back from Brussels just to reside in London and that there will be further devolution to reflect that.
On renegotiation, we often talk about less Europe, but maybe we should sometimes talk about more Europe. The Scottish Government have gone further than elsewhere in the United Kingdom on areas such as climate change or our energy union, where maybe we should be looking at more powers. We could also be looking at more powers in areas of security policy. No one country can possibly deal with the refugee crisis on its own, and the Scottish Government have already set out their willingness to work with European partners and the UK Government to take more refugees.
Let me recap why Europe matters for the devolved Administrations. There are big issues that affect us all in areas such as agriculture policy, fisheries, energy, investment and transport—devolved areas where the EU has a big role and the devolved Administrations have direct responsibility. I have mentioned Northern Ireland. In Wales, up to 200,000 jobs are said to be dependent on EU membership. Even the Isle of Man has a relationship with the EU through the UK as set out in protocol 3 to the UK’s Act of Accession. That is worth bearing in mind.
Key areas for Scotland are set out above, but we often hear about sovereignty. I will read a quote from Professor Douglas-Scott of the university of Oxford and would like the Minister to bear it in mind:
“A UK exit from the EU does not save UK sovereignty. The Claim of Right for Scotland 1989 entrenched the fundamental principle that ‘the people are sovereign’ and that the people have ‘the sovereign right to self-determination and to choose freely the form in which their state is to be constituted’.”
Professor Douglas-Scott’s argument is that
“Therefore, any UK exit of the EU against Scotland’s wishes will create a constitutional crisis rather than save the UK’s sovereignty.”
I leave that with the House to consider.
The hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), who has not been able to return from the vote yet, referred to the referendum. We were a little disappointed with the European Union Referendum Bill. We wanted to see whether there would be a referendum and we obviously voted against that—that was in our manifesto—but if there is to be a referendum, we want EU citizens and 16 and 17-year-olds to be engaged.
In Dublin yesterday, Fiona Hyslop highlighted the fact that 173,000 EU nationals make their home in Scotland. They made an invaluable contribution to the Scottish independence referendum and make an invaluable contribution to Scotland’s day-to-day life. We want them also to be involved. We want a positive campaign that puts forward a positive vision for Scotland. That is why I was a little concerned about some of the language from the Minister’s Back Benchers on some of these issues.
As we have heard from other hon. Members, Scotland and the other devolved Administrations reap the economic benefits of membership in exports, jobs and so on, but those benefits are not just economic. As Fiona Hyslop said in Dublin last night, solidarity, social protection and mutual support must underpin a modern Europe and we want Scotland to be a part of a progressive European Union with European citizens—despite what we said in the referendum last year, we are all still European citizens—at the heart of decision making. The Scottish Government are committed to making the positive case for reform and I have set that out a little.
I do not want to take up too much time because I know that other hon. Members want to come in, but I want to pose some questions for the Minister to answer in his response. Will he set out the formal role for devolved Administrations in the renegotiations—the formal role; I am not talking about an ad hoc role over the phone? We want to hear about a formal role in the same way as the Prime Minister said today that there should be a formal role for other capitals.
Will the Minister comment on the Scottish Government’s priorities in Scotland’s agenda for EU reform? In future, will devolved Administrations be consulted as a matter of course on decisions that affect them and are made at EU level if we remain part of it? This is not just about changing the EU’s relationship, but perhaps about changing the way we, as a member state, interact. I would like a much more formal role for the devolved Administrations.
In the past, we have seen civil servants or Ministers with no direct responsibility for an issue, such as the Minister for bees, leading fisheries negotiations when the Scottish Minister was present. Will the Minister look again at where Ministers from the devolved Administrations can take a lead, with particular reference to fisheries and agriculture?
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a particularly good point on fisheries, given that the Faroese fisheries Minister—a Minister for 50,000 people—is in a quad situation because he deals with Iceland, Norway and the entire EU. The Faroese fisheries Minister is in a far more powerful position not only than the Scottish Minister but the one based here at Westminster. There needs to be some understanding of the context of fisheries in Scotland, which has the majority of the EU fisheries.
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes a particularly good point. I referred to Richard Lochhead, the fisheries Minister in Scotland who is responsible for around 70% of the fishing industry. He had to sit behind the Minister for bees and an unelected civil servant during common fisheries policy negotiations. Will the Minister deal with that situation when he responds?
In his statement today, the Prime Minister rightly highlighted the Dutch quote:
“Europe where necessary, national where possible.”
If powers are to be devolved from Brussels and back to London, will they, when appropriate, be devolved back to the devolved Administrations where they have responsibility? Will the Minister give that commitment today?
Mr MacNeil
On the Dutch quote, one of the problems in Scotland is that we have a middle man in London and we cannot go directly to Brussels.
Stephen Gethins
Again, my hon. Friend makes a valid point about Edinburgh having to do its business with Brussels through the middle man of London. While we are where we are and the United Kingdom is a member state, it is in the interests of everyone across the House to make sure that this relationship works as effectively as possible.
Will the Minister respond to my questions? Will he also reflect on the fact that although he may not have many friends on his Back Benches, he has many potential friends in the devolved Administrations? The saltire is the only flag that flies on Scotland House on Robert Schumanplein at the very heart of Brussels. We are in there making friends and influencing. The Prime Minister is struggling with that, but I am sure the devolved Administrations will reach out that hand of friendship.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) for bringing this important matter to the Chamber for our consideration. My flag, the Union flag, is also flying in Brussels and I am proud of that. I say that for the record.
Jim Shannon
Not for me. There is no confusion whatsoever.
We are aware that at Chatham House this morning the Prime Minister outlined his objectives for renegotiation. I am sure his attempts to renegotiate will be followed closely by hon. Members and many members of the public. How much and what the Prime Minister can achieve is one question; how that will that link up with the regions is the other. We wait with bated breath, as the hon. Member for North East Fife said.
This is a truly monumental stage in our country’s history. The questions are: do we stay in the European Union and what will that relationship look like; or do we leave altogether? I come from a region with a devolved institution, so this debate is of much interest to me, my party and my constituents. I am sure that many of them, and indeed the constituents of colleagues across the Province and the whole UK, are keen to hear what will be said, and to see how the debate will unfold between now and the referendum.
Opinion on the UK’s membership of the EU is divided within Northern Ireland, as it is in most places. There are positives and negatives, and the subject is a hotbed of debate. As a region that has emerged from conflict, Northern Ireland has seen the beneficial aspects of EU membership, with extra funding for peace projects that seek to help with the conflict transformation within Northern Irish society. The EU enabled us to come from conflict to conciliation and from war to peace, so we are grateful for its contribution. However, as in other British regions, there are negative aspects of membership, and we have seen our EU membership devastate traditional industries such as fishing.
Membership has had an indisputable impact on Northern Ireland, for better or for worse, and it is imperative that the Province is taken into account. Giving our devolved institutions—not just in Northern Ireland—a say in the renegotiation process would be a positive step because it would ensure that regionally sensitive issues could be taken into account and that any outcomes of the renegotiation could be tailored to best fit the devolved regions’ needs.
When the Minister replied to my question earlier today about the fishing sector, his response was along the lines that the localised control that we hope to have would come through the common fisheries policy. I respect the Minister, as he knows, but we might disagree about how that will happen on the ground. I represent the village of Portavogie and the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who has just left the Chamber, represents Ardglass and Kilkeel. We are not convinced that the renegotiation on the common fisheries policy will provide the localised control that is necessary. We want local people to have control—we said that earlier and I say it again now. The bureaucracy and red tape, and the loss of fishing boats, jobs and quota, are all having an impact on the fishing industry.
The farming industry is affected as well. I personally live in a rural community, and although the Strangford constituency contains a port, it is also the milk centre of Northern Ireland. We have large numbers of dairymen who look after pedigree herds. We do not see the flexibility from Europe that would make things easier for us.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that can be expanded further. If the Prime Minister was serious about European renegotiation, he might have opened some sort of consultation across the country to find out what people wanted. What he really wants is four or five points to spin in a newspaper headline prior to a referendum. There is no depth and no thought in what the Prime Minister is doing. He should have gone to consult the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, whether they be fishermen or dairy farmers.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Farmers are not convinced that their future is necessarily within Europe, so the Prime Minister has a job to do to convince them of that. I understand that if the money that we put into the EU was taken out again, we could still help the farming communities and give the assistance that is needed. Perhaps that shows that there is a story to be told.
I make the observation that about 13,000 people from outside the United Kingdom, but within the EU, are in receipt of state benefits in Northern Ireland. The proportion is considerably above the average for those born within Northern Ireland and, indeed, the entire United Kingdom. I am not seeking to demonise anyone, but I believe that that is evidence that illustrates that this issue is having just as much impact on Northern Ireland as it is on Essex, Cardiff, Sheffield or Aberdeen. Consequently, I believe that we should have at least a consultative role in the renegotiation of our EU membership.
I hope that hon. Members will take my comments on board and that the Minister will respond. I look forward also to hearing from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). The EU is a thorny subject. There may be division on it in the House, but one thing on which we are united is in wanting input into the process.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. As he said, it is timely that it has occurred on the same day as a ministerial statement on renegotiation and, indeed, on the same day as the Minister was able to have a phone call with his counterpart in the Scottish Government. It would have been very disappointing to come to Westminster Hall to find that there had been no consultation or discussion with the Scottish Government or other devolved Administrations.
The Prime Minister has been at pains to demonstrate how determined and wide ranging his renegotiation strategy has been. He has been jet-setting across Europe to meet almost anyone who will listen to him, forging interesting alliances in the process, but there has been scant evidence of communication, let alone negotiation, with his most important European allies of all—the constituent nations of the UK.
The Prime Minister’s letter to Donald Tusk that was published today states:
“I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals.”
Well, Ms Dorries, Scotland has a Parliament, and Wales and Northern Ireland have Assemblies. Surely they should be working with the UK Parliament and Government to protect and enhance our position in the European Union. During the referendum in Scotland, as my hon. Friend said, Westminster politicians, led by the Prime Minister, were falling over themselves to tell us that we should lead the UK, not leave the UK, and that Scotland’s only hope of remaining in the European Union was to remain in the United Kingdom. Now it seems that both those propositions were without foundation. Scotland’s membership of the European Union is now at far greater risk, and its opportunity to minimise that risk by being an equal partner in the renegotiation process is also threatened by the lack of consultation with the UK Government to date.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the range of questions raised by my hon. Friend, especially with regard to a formal process. In June, the First Minister called for a distinctive forum in which the views of the devolved Assemblies could be heard in the renegotiation process, so I hope that the Minister will tell us about progress on that.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister has now held talks with every single constituent member of the EU, but that nine of those member states have smaller populations than that of Scotland?
Patrick Grady
It does not surprise me at all to hear that. I look forward to seeing the photographs of the Prime Minister. He met the Scottish First Minister to negotiate the Edinburgh agreement in advance of the independence referendum, so I hope that he will sit down with his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to—
Patrick Grady
Exactly: to show us respect—the respect agenda—and to forge a platform on which we can all campaign for the UK to remain in the European Union.
The Minister said earlier in the main Chamber that he had spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs this morning, so he will no doubt be aware of the speech that she made on Monday, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife also referred. That speech laid out the value of EU membership to Scotland, and not just the economic benefits, although they include more than €18 billion of exports and more than 300,000 jobs, but, as we have heard, the solidarity, social protection and support that EU membership has brought to these islands over the decades and the peace that it has brought to the continent throughout its history. In the same speech, she laid out areas in which reform is needed: competitiveness, regulation, climate change and energy. Above all, she spoke about the need to tackle the growing disconnect between individual citizens and the institutions of the European Union.
Too often these days, the European Union is used, especially by this Government, as a useful scapegoat—a useful source of blame for, or disassociation from, policies or practices that people do not like. However, that is a very dangerous game for the Government to play. When it is combined with increasing brinkmanship in the renegotiation process, the Prime Minister and the Government risk provoking a backlash among the wider public. If the Government are not careful, as they were warned in the Chamber today, they risk turning the referendum into a vote on the popularity of the Government, or even the Prime Minister himself, in which case there is a danger that a genuine debate about the importance of the EU to people’s lives will become a surrogate Tory party leadership contest, and voters could opt to leave simply to express their dissatisfaction with the current political leadership. If there is a differential between the result of that kind of vote in traditional Tory heartlands and the rest of the UK, we really will be in uncharted constitutional territory.
We usually talk about a large English majority to leave trumping a Scottish majority to stay and, as we have heard, a UK vote to leave while Scotland voted to stay would certainly violate the Scottish claim of a right to popular sovereignty, but as I said to the Minister in the Chamber today, what if a narrow English majority to leave is trumped by the votes of the other constituent nations to stay? That also takes us into uncharted constitutional territory, and I doubt that many Government Back Benchers would be happy with that kind of result. The answer is to put in place the kind of double majority that the SNP has called for consistently since we got here. The principle of a double majority is good enough for the House of Commons on the question of English votes for English laws, so I am completely unclear about why it is not good enough for this referendum.
The European Union Referendum Bill is in the House of Lords, and the Government are determined to give all those Lords a vote in the referendum. That is very important, because those 800 votes could swing the result. The Government are disfranchising European citizens and 16 and 17-year-olds, but the Lords are to have a vote in the referendum. Why not take the opportunity to put in place the double majority and the other things for which the SNP has been calling since the general election?
I hope that the Minister will see today’s debate as an opportunity to signal his intent to work constructively with the devolved Administrations on the EU negotiations and the case for continued EU membership. As my hon. Friend said, if the questions in the House are anything to go by, the Government will need friends and allies, and they are having difficulty finding them on their own Back Benches. I have no doubt that the devolved Administrations want to work for a positive outcome in the referendum. That means getting a positive outcome from the negotiation process, which in turn means ensuring that the devolved Administrations are heard, because they represent the most important stakeholders in this process—the voters of those constituent countries.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing his first Westminster Hall debate. I was pleased that he scotched the rumour—forgive the pun—that there was some sort of collaboration between him and the Government regarding this debate. I was glad that he clarified that it is a mere coincidence that the debate is being held on the same day as the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the European Council has been published.
Consultation is vital. There must be consultation based on mutual respect for devolution as a reality, and for the institutions of the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. I am slightly concerned, however, about the Scottish National party’s emphasis on the constitution yet again with regard to this issue. Rather than the constitutional relationship, most people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned about bread-and-butter issues.
Wayne David
No, I will not give way. I know that my constituents are not really interested in where, or at what level of government, power resides. They are interested in the quality of their lives, and how the European Union does or does not impact on their lives. Another concern is that the SNP is apparently demanding that it be taken into account and be part of the United Kingdom’s renegotiation process.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Wayne David
No, I will not give way. My time is limited, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.
My concern is that while the SNP says that it wants to be part of the United Kingdom Government’s renegotiation process, the reality is that the party is yet again giving credence to the Tory Government here in Westminster to which it claims to be implacably opposed. In practical terms, it wants to sidle up to the Government and get as close as it possibly can. We saw that in the debate last night with the collaboration between the SNP and the Conservative Government on the reactionary proposal about abortion rights—
Wayne David
No, I will make my point. The proposal that abortion rights should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament is a totally reactionary measure, and it shows the true reactionary nature of the SNP that it wants to sidle up as close as possible to this Tory Government. We are not seeing the SNP demanding that workers’ rights be maintained. The previous speakers made hardly any reference at all to workers’ right—they are not concerned about workers’ rights.
Wayne David
No. I told the hon. Gentleman that I would not give way—[Interruption.]
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr MacNeil, there has been an indication that you will not be allowed to intervene, so please keep some order.
Wayne David
Thank you, Ms Dorries. We are getting used to heckling and barracking from SNP Members. They cannot win the argument, so they try to shout people down and interrupt. That is their style of politics up there. That is, sadly, what nationalism is all about. It is infecting the United Kingdom as well, which is a great shame.
The SNP is today apparently giving credence to the Conservative Government. I believe firmly that this so-called negotiation is an absolute sham. We heard from the Prime Minister in his letter that he sincerely hopes, with all his heart and soul, that he will be in a position to advocate Britain remaining inside the European Union. To ensure that he is able to do that, he will have a superficial façade of a renegotiation to allow him to justify Britain’s continuing membership of the European Union. The SNP should realise that, so why does it want to be part and parcel of that process?
The SNP should be adopting a principled position of arguing in favour of Britain’s continued membership of the European Union. It knows that that is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the Scottish people. At the same time, it should have a long-term perspective on the sorts of radical changes we need inside the European Union. Successful negotiation, if it is to be done properly, cannot be carried out in a matter of weeks or even months. Renegotiation has to be a long-term process, and we have to work with people and to make allies. The Scottish nation cannot stand in splendid isolation; it has to work with other people.
When we come to the referendum, the Labour party will certainly put forward its own campaign, and I imagine that the SNP will do the same. I hope to goodness that the SNP campaigns in favour of our continued membership of the European Union, but I cannot be absolutely certain that that will be the case. The SNP must abandon its inward-looking nationalism for once and work with others across the United Kingdom to make sure that we have a coherent and strong message in support of a yes vote throughout the whole United Kingdom.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing the debate and making it possible for us to take part.
I have a certain amount of déjà vu. A number of us took part in the debate on the Scotland Bill in the Chamber yesterday, where we were treated to a succession of MPs who represented English seats telling Scotland and the Scots what was good for us. Although I am delighted that our good friends across these islands have so much concern for the wellbeing of Scotland, the length of those speeches, and the fact that they often drifted to subjects that were closer to the speakers’ hearts than the subject matter of the debate, suggest that that was perhaps not their primary motivation. At times, I wondered whether Scotland would even get a mention in the midst of the discussion about English devolution, who did what in Parliament in the 1970s and Dicey’s theory of the constitution.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Ms Brock, although I appreciate your comments regarding yesterday’s debate, could you keep your remarks to the subject matter of today’s debate and not make the same mistake?
Deidre Brock
Of course, Ms Dorries. My point was that Scotland’s voice was being drowned out even in the midst of a debate about Scotland’s future. I am sure that that was not the intent, but it is a reflection of how politics and political discourse are very different here from the engagement that we see in the Scottish Parliament and throughout Scotland, despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made it quite clear that the same is true of Northern Ireland. I assume that the same is true of Wales, but the hon. Member for Caerphilly seems to prefer the Conservatives to negotiate on Wales’s behalf in Europe. Each institution has established its own ways of working, which affect the politics of the areas that it serves. In turn, that affects the politicians who operate in each area.
Mr MacNeil
My hon. Friend has mentioned the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who was not keen on debating or engaging with anybody at all. Did she find his speech, in which we were simultaneously accused of being isolationist and of cosying up to other people, strange? I could not understand which way he was going.
Wayne David
On a point of order, Ms Dorries. I have been accused of not taking interventions, but the hon. Lady will not take interventions from me.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Mr David, sit down. That is not a point of order.
Deidre Brock
Thank you, Ms Dorries. We have not only different ways of talking, but different priorities and different political and social aspirations, and the people we represent have different needs. Whatever the hon. Member for Caerphilly says, there is no common mindset across the UK driving the thinking on the EU; there are many. The Government have to recognise and salute that multifaceted approach to the debate in the EU negotiations. That is why the Scottish Government should be consulted at an early stage and throughout the process. The same is true of the Scottish Parliament, especially considering the proportional representation aspect of its elections. Equally, the people of Wales and Northern Ireland deserve to have their devolved institutions feeding into any consideration or reconsideration of any agreement that affects our trading and social links to such a depth and degree. Scotland needs immigration to drive economic growth, and that need does not sit so well with the implied resistance to immigration in the proposals that the Government are pushing, some of which seem to be supported by the loyal Opposition.
We have strong and strengthening devolved institutions representing the interests of a wide range of people from across the UK. A Government who were sure of themselves and sure of the future of the UK would surely feel no fear of consulting those institutions at every stage of the process and ensuring that their views were included in the proposals. It cannot be that the Government lack confidence, or that, as some have suggested, they have contempt for the devolved institutions. Neither can it be that there is no time for consultations with the devolved institutions, given that the Government have found time plenty of time to consult other Governments of European Union member states.
The Minister mentioned in answer to questions on his statement earlier today that he was always willing to listen and that he had had a phone call with the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop, this very morning. If that indicates a change in approach, it is very welcome. I understand that Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, both recently expressed their concerns that they had not been involved enough in the production of the proposals published today. The Prime Minister has made it clear that his direction is towards the exit if his renegotiations are not welcomed. Might not it be a good idea for the Government at least to attempt to get the support of the devolved Administrations before going into the negotiating room?
Our European allies do not seem to be overly willing to reopen treaties or to give advantages to one member state that are not offered to all. With that before the Prime Minister and the Government, and the Eurosceptic brigade panting at the Prime Minister’s back, surely he could do with all the friends he can muster. It would be a mistake for him to try to sell the devolved Administrations a pig in a poke. Opening up and embracing the assistance that the devolved Administrations could offer is a better strategy. I certainly look forward to a far more collegiate approach from the Government in the coming months, and I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to sum up for the Scottish National party. I commend my next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), for securing the debate and for the eloquent way in which he presented the positive case that the SNP will continue to push for our continued membership of the EU.
The events of yesterday and today make me convinced of one thing and very unconvinced of another. I am convinced that in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, Scotland will still be playing a full part as a member of the EU. I am increasingly convinced that it will not be doing so as a member of the United Kingdom. We may, in fact, see a reverse of the situation described by my hon. Friend. In the not-too-distant future, the United Kingdom’s negotiations with the EU may well have to be done through Scotland because we could be the only part of the current UK that is left in it.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly highlighted the fact that the experts on matters such as fishing and agriculture are very often the people who work in those industries. If we do not listen to them from the very beginning of the process, we will get it wrong. The Prime Minister got it wrong by not even including those important economic drivers anywhere in his list of demands. Possibly, if he had spoken to the devolved Administrations earlier, he would have realised that he had to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) presented the positive case and benefits of EU membership. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) had been listening, he would not have had to hope to goodness that the SNP was in favour of EU membership. Indeed, if he had spoken to the ambassadors of any one of the 21 EU member states who came to a reception in Portcullis House about a week ago, he would have heard that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife explained as clearly as possible that the SNP wants to remain in the EU because that is where Scotland’s future lies. The hon. Member for Caerphilly did his country one service because, having listened to him, I am convinced that he has significantly shortened the odds on Leanne Wood becoming First Minister of Wales next year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) highlighted the fact that there are very distinct views, not only on Europe, but on lots of other matters, across the nations that make up this Parliament and this Union. We only have to look at the fact that the devolved Governments are all held by different parties. No party leads the Government in any two of the four nations. Different parties won the general election in each of the four member states of this Parliament.
The separate identity of Northern Ireland is recognised by the fact that it has its own political parties. It does not operate with the same parties as we do. The parties that won the election in Northern Ireland do not exist to any great extent in other parts of the United Kingdom. Having said that, the parties that won the election in England and Wales are in serious danger of ceasing to exist in Scotland if they continue to present the kind of patronising, disrespectful, contemptuous view of our ancient nation that we have seen far too much of over the past couple of days.
The reason for this debate is that we want the Prime Minister’s negotiations to succeed, not because we like the Prime Minister or because we have ever had any intention of running a coalition with the Tories to persuade any nation how to vote on its own future, but because, if the Prime Minister fails—it looks increasingly likely that he will fail—we will go into a referendum based on a promised reform that has not been delivered. That referendum is likely not only to result in us being dragged out of the EU—[Interruption.]
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Grant, would you wind up your comments so that we can have a meaningful debate with comments from the Opposition and Government Front Benches?
Peter Grant
I will, Ms Dorries. My real concern is not only that a failure by the Prime Minister will lead to a vote to take the devolved Administrations out of the EU against our will, but that it might lead to a debate that is not about the benefits of EU membership but about an antipathy to immigration and an antipathy to anyone who was born outside these islands. It may become a referendum on the popularity of the Prime Minister, and that is a referendum that the Prime Minister cannot possibly win.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Would you keep to five minutes please, Mr McFadden?
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Indeed. Thank you, Ms Dorries. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am reminded of the words of the great Yogi Berra, who said:
“It’s déjà vu all over again.”
The Minister has certainly earned his ministerial stipend today. He took questions for an hour and a half to two hours earlier in the House and is now about to reply to this debate. I do not know if the Prime Minister is a generous man in personal terms but he certainly owes the Minister a drink for what he has been put through today. The only consolation for him is that his colleagues are not here for this debate as they were for the statement earlier. He is at least spared their unstinting support in the endeavours that the Government have set out today.
I do not know whether the debate is well timed or—possibly, more accurately—a few hours late. The horse has somewhat bolted on this. The Prime Minister has made his speech. The Minister has made his statement. The letter to the President of the European Council has been written. I do not propose to go over the exchange that we had earlier or the questions that we exchanged, except to add a point about the negotiation that was perhaps not covered so much in statement. We are seeing this through British eyes and the four demands have been put together by the Prime Minister and the Minister in that sense. The rest of Europe is coping with an unprecedented refugee crisis. An official from another member state said to me last week, “The trouble is that we are in two different movies.” That is one of the issues for the process.
The issue before us is the consultation and involvement of the devolved Administrations, which, of course, should be appropriately consulted and involved. Quite rightly, people have said that different issues are viewed in different ways in different parts of the UK. Not every issue has the same impact everywhere. I want to speak specifically about Northern Ireland because I attended the debate mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), which was organised by Newry, Mourne and Down District Council a couple of weeks ago.
We had an excellent debate about cross-border movement of people, movement of goods, business, trade and farm subsidies—the whole thing. The team for staying in the EU were me and former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. I am pleased to say that a vote was taken by 300 or 400 people—mostly small businesspeople—at the end of the debate. The proposal to stay in was carried by 92% to 8%. I make no predictions or claims that that was necessarily a representative audience of everywhere in the UK, but the debate should go to every part of the UK. Every part should have the widest possible involvement. Ultimately, the question—all the things that have been raised about representation and so on—revolves around whether we view the situation through nationalist eyes. If we do, we will effectively see the UK as four member states. Those who are not nationalists will see it as one member state. We joined as one member state, we will have this referendum as one member state, and we will make the decision as one member state. The issue about appropriate consultation and involvement should be seen in that light.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing this debate.
I, too, want to avoid reprising the greatest hits from today’s ministerial statement in the House, but it would be remiss of me if I did not start by putting it on the record that today the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council setting out four key areas on which he seeks reform: on sovereignty and subsidiarity; on competitiveness; on eurozone governance; and on migration and welfare. Anyone who examines the Prime Minister’s speech this morning or the text of his letter to Mr Tusk, which was released slightly later, will see that many areas in which we are seeking reform match the views often expressed by members of the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom.
The Scottish Government have published their agenda for reform, which includes calls for greater focus on competitiveness; deepening the European single market, and particularly for the creation of a Europe-wide digital single market; and progress on an internal energy union. The United Kingdom Government have embodied all those things in their approach to European reform. Our proposals for smarter, less burdensome and less complex regulation will be particularly welcome in Northern Ireland, which is overwhelmingly a small and medium-sized enterprise economy.
If we look at previous economic reforms, we find that the EU-South Korea free trade agreement, for example, is worth up to £500 million a year to the British economy. That agreement is already bringing advantages to sectors such as whisky and financial services, which are important in Scotland and in the two other devolved parts of this country. The Scottish Government’s agenda for reform also mentioned a stronger role for national Parliaments and the need to secure a stronger focus at European level on subsidiarity and proportionality—those ideas are meant to be written into the DNA of the way in which the EU operates.
I was asked why certain other matters were not included in the Prime Minister’s letter. Of course, the Government have already delivered quite a lot of effort on securing reform on some of those issues. Earlier, in the House, I mentioned the Damanaki proposals on fisheries reform, which have delivered things such as the ban on discarding, which successive British Governments have sought for many, many years and which have led to a shift towards greater local and regional management of fisheries. It is no secret that British Ministers would have wished to go further, and I am sure there will be an opportunity to return to the charge; but in the meantime, the real priority in fishing is to ensure that we implement those reforms in full.
Similarly, a measure of reform was achieved in the last common agricultural policy round, but, of course, the timing of the agricultural reviews matches that of the multi-annual financial framework, so the next opportunity to seek more thorough reform of agriculture will be in a few years’ time, as we approach the review of the MFF.
Many contributions to today’s debate focused on the negotiation process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is leading a clear process to secure reform, which is now well under way. He has already met the leaders of all the other 27 member states, as well as the President of the European Commission and the Presidents of the European Parliament and the European Council. In parallel, talks on technical issues have been taking place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. There will now be a process of negotiation involving all 28 member states leading up to the European Council in December, which will be the next time that Heads of Government will substantively discuss these issues.
We attach great importance to our engagement with the devolved Administrations on this issue, as we do on others. Having said that, all hon. Members will be aware that foreign policy issues, including the United Kingdom’s membership of international organisations, are reserved matters and that relations with the EU are the responsibility of the Parliament and the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course, Scottish National party Members have a mandate from their electors in Scotland to hold the United Kingdom Government to account for the policies that we adopt on those reserved matters, so the hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen from the SNP who spoke this afternoon are doing precisely what it is constitutionally right for them to do on behalf of the people of Scotland.
Mr Lidington
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make a bit more progress. I will try to give way, but I am conscious of the time and wish to try to respond to the points made in the debate.
We try to involve the devolved Administrations as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters that touch on devolved areas. We have held discussions with representatives from the devolved Administrations throughout the renegotiation process, and I will be continuing those discussions when I visit Edinburgh tomorrow. I am actively looking for dates to visit Cardiff and Belfast in the near future. The UK’s renegotiation is now also a standing agenda item at meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, which I chair. The renegotiation will also be an issue for discussion at the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee chaired by the Prime Minister and involving the First Ministers of the three devolved Administrations, which is next due to meet in January.
It has been implicit in a number of speeches this afternoon that it will not be enough simply to rely on a series of formal meetings at set intervals. If the consultation process is to work effectively, it will rely not only on UK Ministers arranging meetings or conversations, but on devolved Ministers getting on the phone when an issue arises that concerns them or when they wish to express a particularly important point of view to a British Minister, so that view is registered and can be taken into account in framing the UK position. That, after all, is how we now work in respect of EU policy generally. There is an agreed position across the Government that every Department, before it seeks collective agreement within the UK Government on a negotiating position in relation to a European issue, should analyse whether that question touches on devolved responsibilities and, if it does, should consult the devolved Administrations. In their written submission to fellow UK Ministers, Departments should summarise the views and interests of the devolved Administrations, so that we can take them into account when making our decisions.
As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said, we are one United Kingdom. There will be one in/out referendum, which will be decided on a majority of those who vote. It is the UK that is the member state of the EU, so it is right that the electorate of the member state as a whole has a say on continued EU membership.
I was also asked about the Government’s approach to involving the devolved Administrations in EU business, and I strongly maintain that we always try to ensure that the interests of the devolved Governments and the people of all parts of the UK are defended and advanced. The Scottish Fisheries Minister, Mr Lochhead, is in north America this week, and our embassy in Washington has been active in arranging meetings for that visit. Our officials in the United States have been active in seeking benefits for Scottish business of the kind sought by Mr Lochhead, such as the lifting of the US ban on the import of haggis.
We have a system under which we welcome devolved Ministers to join delegations in Brussels, and I have welcomed a Welsh Minister to meetings of the General Affairs Council more than once when we have been due to discuss cohesion policy, which is of particular importance to the Government and people of Wales. All three devolved Administrations sent Ministers and officials to the fisheries talks, where collectively they usually far outnumbered the UK delegation.
Written Statements
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Extraordinary Competitive Council on the Steel Industry
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and President of the Board of Trade (Sajid Javid)
On Monday 9 November I represented the UK at an extraordinary meeting of the Competitiveness Council in Brussels at which we discussed the challenges facing the steel industry in the EU. The Council was convened by the Luxembourg presidency of the Council of the European Union following my request.
All member states agreed that the steel industry is facing acute pressures as a result of global overcapacity and rapidly rising levels of imports and that this is having a negative effect across the whole of the EU—hurting not just steel-producing nations, but also those involved in supply chains.
The Council considered the impact of global overcapacity, unfair trading practices, energy costs and regulatory burdens on the competitiveness of the steel sector. At the end of the meeting a number of actions to support the steel sector were set out in presidency conclusions and include:
Improving the instruments available to the European Commission to allow for faster and more effective trade defence investigations;
Making full and timely use of trade policy instruments to ensure a global level playing field in the steel sector;
Intensifying discussions involving steel producers in the context of the OECD steel committee and through dialogues with countries like China, Russia, Belarus, Turkey and India;
Holding a high-level stakeholders’ conference involving social partners, industry and users to discuss the current state of the sector and policy actions that should be taken forward;
Assessing the implementation of the 2013 European steel action plan in the context of the current crisis facing the steel industry;
Improving the access of EU exporters to third markets;
Using EU funds to support the modernisation of the steel sector, retraining and reintegration into the labour market;
Looking at all possible ways of supporting energy-intensive industries within the current state aid framework;
Using the review of the emissions trading system to ensure that the steel sector remains competitive while still meeting climate change goals, specifically by creating a more focused mechanism for the free allocation of allowances and removing the need for a cross-sectoral correction factor;
Swiftly implementing the European energy union to ensure access to secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy; and
Fully exploiting the proposals under the upcoming European Commission circular economy strategy to support the sector.
Follow-up to this meeting will take place when the Council’s Foreign Affairs Committee (Trade) meets on 27 November and when the high-level stakeholder conference on steel is convened.
In the meantime, my Department will continue its work to support Britain’s steel industry and the workers who have recently lost their jobs.
[HCWS300]
ECOFIN
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 10 November 2015. Ministers are due to discuss the following items:
Ministerial dialogue with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Countries
ECOFIN Ministers will meet their EFTA counterparts before the Council proper to exchange views on economic growth and structural reforms.
Current Legislative Proposals
The presidency will update the Council on the state of play of financial services dossiers.
Capital Markets’ Union
The Council will be invited to adopt conclusions on the Commission’s capital markets’ union action plan.
Implementation of the Banking Union
The Commission will give an update on several dossiers linked to the banking union: the single resolution fund, the bank recovery and resolution directive and the deposit guarantee scheme directive.
Single Resolution Mechanism—Rules for Bridge Financing
Ministers will be asked to provide guidance on the proposal for providing bridge financing for the single resolution mechanism.
Economic Governance and Follow-up to the Five Presidents’ report
The Council will have an initial discussion on the Commission’s recent package of proposals following the Five Presidents’ report.
Climate Finance
The Council will examine draft conclusions on climate finance which constitute the second part of the COP21 negotiating mandate.
Follow-up to the G20 and IMF meetings in Lima of 8-11 October 2015
The presidency and the Commission will report on the G20 and IMF meetings in Lima in October.
[HCWS298]
EU Renegotiation
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
In his statement to the House on 19 October, Official Report, column 656, following the October European Council, the Prime Minister said that he would be writing to the President of the European Council to set out the changes the Government wished to see in reforming the UK’s relationship with the European Union. A copy of that letter can be found online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-11-10/HCWS303/
[HCWS303]
“No voice unheard, no right ignored”: Government Response
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
The Government are today publishing their official response to the consultation paper “No voice unheard, no right ignored—a consultation for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions.”
“No voice unheard, no right ignored” was presented by the previous Government because not enough progress had been made to transform the care of people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health problems as promised in the wake of the Winterbourne View scandal.
The consultation posed questions primarily related to:
assessment in mental health hospitals for people (all age) with learning disability or autism;
adult care and support, primarily for those with learning disability but also for adults with autism (and the links to support for children and young people); and
all those to whom the Mental Health Act 1983 currently applies (including children and young people).
We have listened to the views expressed in response to the consultation, and agree there is a need for further action to realise the vision of everyone being treated with dignity and respect by health and care services, and enjoying the same rights as everyone else.
The response comprises a number of phases of activity, namely:
early actions that seek to sustain momentum generated, chiefly through the use of existing powers and building on work currently underway;
further changes, including proposed legislative changes that cannot be achieved via existing powers (these changes relate principally to the Mental Health Act 1983); and
a third phase, which explores more radical solutions to longer-term issues, together with ongoing monitoring and review, and a clear back-stop that the Government will intervene further via legislation if the improvements sought are not being realised in practice.
The proposals in this document go hand in hand with the substantial programmes of work being put in place under the transforming care programme, including the recently announced “building the right support” national transformation plan. This was published on 30 October by NHS England, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to reduce reliance on inpatient capacity and increase community-based provision. A national NHS England fund of £45 million will be available to transforming care partnerships over the next three years to aid the transition, focusing on ensuring that the right support is available in local areas to enable the first discharges. Central to the progress set out by the plan over the next three years will be new, high-quality, community-based services. The plan predicts that, as these services are put in place, there will be a reduction of up to 50% in the number of inpatient beds, meaning that some units will close altogether.
The proposals for action are put forward in the context of, and subject to, the Government’s comprehensive spending review. We will continue to engage with stakeholders and those with expertise by lived experience in a spirit of co-production as we take these proposals forward.
The consultation was undertaken by the Department of Health in England. However, as the Mental Health Act applies across England and Wales, it recognised that any changes to the law in Wales would have to be agreed by the National Assembly for Wales.
A copy of the Command Paper (number 9142) entitled “Government response to No voice unheard, no right ignored—a consultation for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions” is available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office, online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/strengthening-rights-for-people-with-learning-disabilities.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http:// www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2015-11-10/HCWS302/
[HCWS302]
Forensic Archive Ltd
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
I am pleased to announce that the Home Office has begun the first review of the Forensic Archive Limited (FAL). FAL was established in October 2012 to manage and maintain material previously held by the Forensic Science Service.
Reviews of non-departmental public bodies are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring accountability in public life.
I will announce the findings of the review later in this financial year.
[HCWS299]
Vehicle Emissions Testing Programme: Government Action
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
I wish to inform the House of the latest developments on vehicle emissions testing, following the revelations that Volkswagen Group had been fitting so-called defeat devices to some of its vehicles.
The Government take the unacceptable actions of Volkswagen extremely seriously. Our priority is to protect the public and I have taken a number of steps to investigate what went wrong and what we can do to stop it happening again.
I have been clear that I expect VW to do everything necessary to protect its UK customers, but it is right also that the Government carry out their own thorough and independent investigation to:
establish whether the use of defeat devices goes wider than the VW Group; and
gather much-needed evidence to restore public confidence, improve our understanding of the real-world emission performance of vehicles, and strengthen our ambition and influence in pushing the EU to move to a comprehensive real-world testing regime.
We have already taken a range of actions.
The UK testing body, the Vehicle Certification Agency, has secured assurance from all automotive manufacturers outside the VW Group for whom it has issued emissions type approvals that defeat devices have not been used. We will of course be testing this for ourselves. We have already retested VW Group vehicles for which the UK provided type approval. These initial tests provide valuable information, improving our ability to detect a defeat device and strengthening our understanding of the impact it has on vehicle emissions, including CO2 and NOx.
We have also begun a wider testing programme to understand the real-world emissions performance of a broader selection of vehicles in the UK. This is crucial to improve the accuracy of environmental assessments—used for both air quality management and infrastructure investment. This programme will test a representative selection of vehicles used on UK roads, including a sample of the newest and the UK’s top-selling vehicles.
I have secured agreement from my opposite number in Germany that our technical teams will work co-operatively together. This will enable us to reduce duplication and ensure a wide range of vehicles are tested. My officials will continue to look for further opportunities for collaboration with other European partners with a view to securing additional efficiencies.
This investigation is vital in restoring public confidence. We will look at vehicles from across all main brands sold in the UK—manufacturers will be treated equally. We must act urgently to remedy wrongdoing but we must also ensure that the results from this investigation are viewed fairly and in the context of the completed work. A report will be prepared at its conclusion and I will provide an update on progress by the end of the calendar year.
Alongside this, we have succeeded in reaching an agreement with the European Commission and member states that represents a real step change in the way in which testing is carried out—for the first time real-world testing will be part of the regulatory regime from 2017. This is an important milestone, but we will continue to press for EU-level action towards a comprehensive approach to emissions testing, to restore consumer confidence and deliver our wider air quality and climate objectives.
We have a major work programme under way and I will continue to inform the House of developments.
[HCWS301]
Grand Committee
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education and Adoption Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard) (CB)
Welcome to the Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Clause 6: Interaction between intervention powers
Baroness Pinnock
“Scrutiny of education provision
(1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 70C insert—
“70D Scrutiny of education provisions
(1) This section applies where more than 10 per cent of schools in a local education authority is eligible for intervention under section 60B.
(2) The relevant local authority may establish, under section 21(2) of the Local Government Act 2000 (overview and scrutiny committees), a committee of that authority to review and scrutinise matters relating to the provision of education in such schools in the authority’s area, and to make reports and recommendations on such matters in accordance with regulations under this section.
(3) Regulations shall make provision—
(a) as to the matters relating to the provision of education in such schools in the authority’s area which the committee may review and scrutinise;(b) as to matters relating to the provision of education in such schools in the authority’s area on which the committee may make reports and recommendations to local Academy sponsors;(c) as to information which local Academy sponsors must provide to the committee;(d) requiring Regional Schools Commissioners to attend before the committee to answer questions.””
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
First, I apologise to the Committee for not being able to attend the Second Reading of the Bill because of diary clashes.
My noble friends Lord Storey, Lady Sharp of Guildford and I have tabled this amendment to improve the local and democratic accountability of schools in a local community for a number of reasons. The first reason is that school funding accounts for around 50% of local authority spending for councils that have responsibility for education. The second reason is that, by their very nature, schools reflect the communities they serve and parents expect there to be a local process of oversight and a local means of expressing any concerns. The third reason is that there have been a number of high-profile failures of financial governance in the academy sector. For example, there have been allegations relating to fraud in a number of schools in Bradford and County Durham. The Education Funding Agency has issued financial notices to improve to several academy chains, including the Academies Enterprise Trust in 2014. The fourth reason for tabling this amendment is that multi-academy trusts currently seem to be the favoured way forward, but they are accountable for their strategic and financial performance only to the Education Funding Agency and the Secretary of State. The fifth reason is that governance models in multi-academy trusts ensure that the sponsor or sponsoring body controls the trust. I am sure the Minister will have seen the publication by the New Schools Network.
Multi-academy trusts are governed by a trust body and by so-called directors of the trust who take the strategic and financial decisions for the schools under their control. On the whole, multi-academy trusts set up local governing bodies to do the day-to-day running and there is no parental or staff involvement until this lower level of governance. The document recommends that there should be one member of staff and two parents on those bodies and that they should not have any oversight of the financial controls of the trust and therefore of the school in which they serve. The crucial thing in this model is that decisions on school budgets are in the hands of the directors of the trust and that the trust members are self-appointed and accountable for their actions only via agreements signed with the Department for Education and the Education Funding Agency.
In this model there is no accountability to the local community and to parents. This amendment seeks to address those serious concerns. There is currently a vacuum of democratic accountability regarding the attainment and achievement of schools and, even more importantly, for the attainment and achievement of the children in those schools. Those matters are no longer within the remit of the local authority. As a serving local councillor I can say that when parents approach me with concerns about their children’s academy school’s ability to achieve realistic opportunities for them, it is difficult to address those concerns other than by going through the very processes that created them in the first place—that is, the school’s governing body or trust.
In this amendment we propose to put matters right. In 2006 the Government established local authority health scrutiny committees. The government guidance for those committees, which is on the GOV.UK website, is very clear about their purpose. I think that the purposes for which health scrutiny committees were established could serve in establishing parallel scrutiny committees for schools within the local authority area. The government guidance for local authority health scrutiny committees, available on the GOV.UK website, states:
“The primary aim of health scrutiny is to act as a lever to improve the health of local people, ensuring their needs are considered as an integral part of the commissioning, delivery and development of health services … Health scrutiny is a fundamental way by which democratically elected local councillors are able to voice the views of their constituents, and hold relevant NHS bodies and relevant health service providers to account”.
It seems to me that by substituting “schools and education” within that guidance we have a prime way of letting local communities call to account all schools, particularly academies because there is a big vacuum in accountability for local academies. In the nearly 10 years since the committees were introduced they have been extraordinarily effective in bringing together local democratically elected representatives, health commissioners and CCGs, representatives of the acute trusts in the district and the public health people to scrutinise health issues. Together they have been able to resolve some of the difficult challenges of providing health services in the community. I would attest that this same model could work really well for local education.
The guidance goes on very helpfully to demonstrate how scrutiny committees can add value by bringing together partners providing, in this case, health services. I suggest that it could also be done for education in a district. It says:
“A greater emphasis on involving patients”,
and for education that could be parents,
“and the public from an early stage in proposals to improve services”.
Engaging people has got to be a positive. It continues:
“The work of health and wellbeing boards”,
in this case we could bring in the education scrutiny committee,
“bringing together representatives of the whole … system”.
This will therefore add value to the decisions made. It will provide an opportunity for a public, open, transparent and democratic hearing of a local community’s concerns about local schools.
One key to success in a school is harnessing the support of the local community that it serves. Anyone who has ever been involved in education, as I have, knows that good schools are supported very well by their local community. One indicator that a school is beginning to fail is when the local community starts taking support away from it.
The risk with the multi-academy trust model is that schools will become more remote from the communities they serve. I suggest that a successful multi-academy trust would welcome the opportunity of a public platform where it could demonstrate transparency in its decision-making and respond to questions about its performance from local people. With that in mind, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I am not sure whether her suggestion is exactly right but the principles that she raises are very important. They concern local democratic accountability and they also concern what she described as flaws in the governance structure of academies, particularly multi-academies. I share her view on both points.
The noble Baroness suggested that we look at the health model and I think that she is right. One thing that puzzles me about academy trusts is that they do not seem to allow for a direct relationship between the governance and the parents, except in the circumstances that she has described. I suggest that we look at NHS foundation trusts, which after all were developed at around the same time.
I know that the education department is very isolated in Whitehall and this is yet another example of that, but the ownership of an NHS foundation trust is rooted in patients, staff and members of the public, because they become members without paying any cost and it is the members who elect the governing council. The governing council, in turn, appoints the non-executives and the chairman to the board and approves the appointment of the chief executive. The board of directors is a statutory body. It is the board that you sue and harangue if things go wrong, but it is accountable locally through a very well-ordered structure and it carries with it a much better sense of accountability. There is a clear line of responsibility with a proper board of directors. There is no problem about its legal responsibilities and it is accountable. When I chaired a foundation trust, the fact that I had to appear before the governors’ council every month or so to explain the trust’s problems and what we were doing about them was a very good discipline. It was not a very easy discipline—I confess that I did not enjoy doing it—but it was an immeasurably strengthening exercise, and I think that the noble Baroness is trying to get at that in part of her amendment.
The noble Baroness also raises the whole question of the local authority’s role in the education policy that the Government are developing. I refer back to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Knight during our first day in Committee. He basically said that if the Government want all schools to be academies, why do they not just say so and bring in legislation? Why do we have to have this rather obscure, backwards way of academising all schools? That is basically dishonest. I hope that the Minister might just praise a maintained school—he has four hours in which to do so but I have yet to hear him ever praise a maintained school. Clearly, he has an ideological problem with maintained schools. That is why we remain suspicious of the Bill and some of the motivations behind it.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
As well as the fact that, on this particular point, the Education Department seems wholly out of step with the general direction of government policy—which, as my noble friend said, is transferring power from central government to the local combined authorities—the department’s stance undermines the very policy itself. The overarching remit of the combined authorities is to develop the economies of their city or region and translate that growth into opportunities for all their citizens, particularly the most disadvantaged. Surely education has to be part of that agenda of economic growth. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
This is another puzzle because the terms of the agreement with Greater Manchester focus on growth in the economy and specifically mention the skills agenda. I have listened to the Government talk about the issue of skills—albeit at the same time as destroying further education, which of course is where most of these skills are taught; but we will leave that aside for the moment—and I am absolutely amazed because the argument they put forward is that while skills are crucially important, the role of schools is to make sure that, when they come out, young people are ready to go into the workplace; that is, those who do not go into higher or further education, if any is left when they reach the age when they move on from school.
Why on earth is education being taken out of this really exciting development? I am enthusiastic about what is happening in Greater Manchester, and potentially it is hugely exciting, but I just do not understand why education is being left out of it. This is but one example of how, when the Department for Education says that it is consistent with the localism agenda, it is, frankly, completely unbelievable.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to be present in Grand Committee last week, but I have read with interest the Committee report. Two things come to mind in relation to this debate. The first is that I am most grateful to the Minister for organising an extremely helpful meeting with head teachers and regional schools commissioners. At the meeting I raised a question about local accountability which followed from our debate at Second Reading. On the question of regional accountability, I put to a regional schools commissioner the case that while it is important to improve academic outcomes for young people, there may be a reason to override the local interest of parents in their schools. I hope that I am paraphrasing him correctly, but he said that it is really important to bring the local community with one, which seems to support the notion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others that if one is to have a successful school, one needs to bring the local community on board as far as possible.
The second point I want to raise is that, having read the Hansard report of the previous sitting, I am concerned by the Government’s focus on a very narrow assessment of education; that is, on academic attainment. Of course it is extremely important that our children should do well academically so that they leave school being able to read and write and are ready in terms of employment, and that is important to their parents as well, but as was made clear in that debate, children need a rounded education. Some children in particular benefit from an education which perhaps does not emphasise academic attainment so much but allows them to excel in sport and vocational attainment in other areas. My sense is that we need to allow some young people to fail and fail and fail again. Young people in care in particular may do poorly in terms of their academic attainment while they are at school, but many of them will do well in their early 20s or even their late 20s. If one puts great pressure on schools to ensure that all children do well academically, the risk is that those children who do not have so much academic capacity may be excluded, be given less attention, or to some degree will be seen as an inconvenience.
Perhaps that is an argument for giving local authorities and local bodies more influence over and supervision of what goes on in academies and elsewhere. The people in Manchester may think, “Well, in this area we have a particular interest in vocational success and we would like to see our schools equipping our children to enter apprenticeships”. I am probably not expressing myself well. I think that my chief concern arose when I read about the new pressures being put on head teachers to ensure that children do well academically because of the emphasis that the Government are placing on this. I worry about those children who may not have so much academic potential but do have potential in other ways. Perhaps the amendment that has been put forward will allay some of those concerns.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here in the Committee’s session last week. It was for medical reasons—and my experience has not filled me with either enthusiasm or confidence that importing wholesale from the health service will solve all our problems. However, there are some very good individual doctors in the system, which is why it works.
To go to the challenge put to the Minister about maintained schools from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I spent this morning with seven head teachers from maintained primary schools in the most difficult areas of inner London. I have no doubt that they are doing a terrific job. I agree that there are some excellent maintained schools doing an excellent job. Some of them even refer to the good partnerships with local academies which they hope will develop. That is the other side of the picture.
However, I would make two or three quick comments. When I hear the expression “democratic accountability”, the philosopher in me wants to write three articles to try to clarify what that means. The Committee should not worry, for I am not going to try to do that now, but it is a shibboleth at times. At other times it is an important use of language, just as talk of human rights is, but sometimes it covers a multitude of uncertainties and unclarities. I do not deny that it is important but here, for example, we have to distinguish between accountability for financial systems and governance—one kind of accountability that is not necessarily for a public committee; I would rather have a high-powered team from PricewaterhouseCoopers or some such going in to inspect them and report back—and the separate form of accountability which is necessary for educational practice. Parents and teachers no doubt have important things to say but it must never be forgotten that at least half of those, possibly both, are interested parties.
I come to the nub of what I want to say. The problem that the Bill is facing up to is essentially a question of dealing with what has arisen in schools that are currently maintained under the local authority system. If that is so, just recreating it without modification will not do the job. We need more subtlety and sophistication in trying to face that problem, when it is there that the difficulties have arisen. The Committee may have dealt, as I gather it did at some length last week, with the definition of coasting. But if there are coasting schools, a number of them have arisen within a local authority and within the maintained system. So there are good, bad and coasting schools, all of them within the maintained sector. That is why I find it difficult simply to pick up a proposal that all you have to do is to spread the responsibility by having ways of taking on board an additional set of views, without a means of sharpening them.
To go back to my speech at Second Reading, there is a danger that we will simply bring in delaying tactics, which are the curse of the current system. I am still worried about the Bill having delays built into it in a way that I find unacceptable. That is why I am not—
Baroness Pinnock
Perhaps I may help out a bit. What I have proposed in the amendment has nothing to do with delaying anything. What it seeks to do is to find a way for local people to have a local voice about the schools that serve their community, be they maintained schools, schools in a multi-academy trust or single trust academies. All the amendment is about is creating an opportunity for an oversight of what goes on in a local community. It is not about decision-making, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, may have thought. If we follow the parallel of the local authority health scrutiny committees, it is not only about membership by local elected councillors. Those committees have a membership that is drawn widely from both those who are elected to serve their communities and those who have an interest or past professional experience in the health sector. Those people are drawn together to look at the health services in their area and come to some conclusions about them, as well as enabling local people to come forward with their concerns. So this is nothing to do with delaying or only having a committee. It is about enabling some sort of platform for local people to voice their concerns, or perhaps even their delight, at what is going on. I hope that that has clarified it a bit.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
It does, and that is helpful, but it still leaves the question of accountability for finance and governance, which is very specialist, and accountability for educational practices, which is pretty specialist too but perhaps does not relate to some of the issues that we are concerned with.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Before the noble Lord’s previous intervention, he seemed to me to be saying, and perhaps he could clarify whether this is his view, that all the schools that are bad or coasting are in the maintained sector, that the solution to dealing with that is to take them away from local authority control and relationships completely and that therefore, by implication, all the academies that have gone through the process of becoming academies are excellent. We know that that is not true. Is that what he is saying—that all the bad and coasting schools are only in the maintained sector?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that that is not what I am saying. I have been an advocate of full inspection for academies ever since the last Bill was introduced, and I still take that position. That is the way in which academies should be judged; have no doubt about that. I do not think it likely that we will deal with that in this Bill but the noble Baroness asked me what my position was, and that is it.
What I am saying is that the Bill deals with coasting schools in the maintained sector and, if that is so, there is a bit of a problem if we are going to deal with the issue by simply recreating that. I simply record my reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was right to say that as it stands the clause may not achieve all that it sets out to, and if it comes back again I would be very interested to have a look at it. Still, I have these reservations and wanted to put them on record.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, this new clause would allow a local authority to establish a committee to review and scrutinise the provision of education in coasting schools, where such schools make up more than 10% of schools in the local area.
First, I shall touch on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the accountability of academies. Our view is in fact that the accountability structure for academies is stronger because it reflects their status as both charitable companies and public bodies. This means that when it comes to matters of good governance and financial management, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, noted, are very important, they not only have statutory responsibilities under company law but explicit accountabilities to Parliament. Because of this dual layer of accountabilities, academies have a stronger financial framework and are held up to greater scrutiny than most other types of schools.
Baroness Pinnock
I wonder whether we are at risk of thinking that accountability for children’s education—their one chance to get a good education—is all about balance sheets, audits and professionals coming to some conclusion having looked at attainment levels. At their heart, parents are concerned about whether their children are happy in school, whether bullying is dealt with and whether they get opportunities outside school for extensive education—creative, artistic or sporting. Those are the sorts of things that they take into account as well as their child’s academic progress. That is the accountability that I am talking about, not some dry, dusty PwC audit report that parents may not be able to understand. They do understand what happens to their children’s experience in schools. Where can they ask the questions?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I mentioned that because the noble Baroness specifically talked about academies suffering financial failures, so I was addressing that point. I will come on in due course to talk about some of the other issues that she has raised.
We believe that the amendment is not necessary as the Bill gives regional schools commissioners, working on behalf of the Secretary of State, the powers to work with, and intervene in, any school that is coasting. Both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned health scrutiny committees as a potential way of looking at this issue. The structure that we believe will work best is that of regional schools commissioners, and I will go on to explain why. I am sure that we will come back to this matter time and again this afternoon but I will attempt to put down the first marker as to why we believe that the Bill has devolution at its heart.
First, the Bill is concerned with improving schools that have failed. Decisions will be taken by regional schools commissioners, who are immersed in their local context—a point highlighted by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, from the conversations that he has had and from what he has seen. They are also advised by outstanding local heads. So there is local accountability and I will come on to talk a little more about that in due course.
Secondly, one of the main measures in the Bill gives greater power and responsibility to education professionals. The thrust of the Government’s agenda is to devolve power down to the very local level, trusting head teachers to know what is best and to do all the things that we want to see in good schools, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I am sure that we will return to this in later amendments.
As I said, the Bill provides RSCs with additional intervention powers for maintained schools so that RSCs can directly tackle schools that have been allowed to fail, or indeed coast, under the local authority’s watch. This means that all coasting schools will come under the scrutiny of regional schools commissioners. The RSC will work with each coasting school in their area to identify whether the school has the capacity to improve sufficiently by itself, which is one option, or whether additional support, including potential intervention, is needed. Such additional support could come from a national leader of education. Alternatively, the RSC may consider that the school should become a sponsored academy, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, mentioned, there might be a partnership between the existing school and other local maintained schools or local academies.
The work of RSCs will go beyond what is suggested in the amendment. RSCs will not wait until 10% of schools in an area have been notified that they are coasting before reviewing the education provision in those schools. Their work in relation to coasting schools needs to be continuous and thorough, with the aim of intervening swiftly where necessary. RSCs are strategically placed around the country to make decisions about coasting schools while, as I said, being immersed in the local context.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the role of local authorities. They will work very closely with RSCs, and I will come on to that. However, in terms of provision, local authorities can run competitions to set up new schools in areas where there is such a need. So there is still a role for local authorities, and many around the country have been active, although perhaps not enough due to the places issue that we are facing.
As I said, we expect RSCs to work closely with local authorities, and we have already seen evidence of effective partnerships. For instance, in Suffolk, the regional schools commissioner, Dr Tim Coulson, meets the local authority every month to discuss schools of concern. The RSC has strongly encouraged the authority to use its existing statutory intervention powers, and over the last 12 months Suffolk has issued 22 warning notices to poorly performing schools. The RSC has brought into Suffolk a number of new academy sponsors with proven track records of success. Overall, 17 underperforming Suffolk schools have become sponsored academies since September 2014 and a further five are in the process of converting. Also, this month the RSC is meeting the leader of the council to discuss establishing a school improvement board with the aim that every school inspected by Ofsted over the next two years will improve by at least one grade.
As to accountability and parents, the Schools Causing Concern guidance which is currently out for consultation makes it clear that local authorities should already alert the relevant RSC when they have concerns about standards, leadership or governance in an academy or a free school. Parents can, and already do, write to RSCs when they have concerns. As I have said, RSCs are very clear about the need for community and parental engagement.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I am sorry to intervene but I am getting rather confused. Did the Minister say that parents can write to the RSC?
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Why is it not the other way round? Why does the RSC not convene a meeting of parents? I am quite concerned about the letter from the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, which says that this,
“shows our absolute determination to create a school led system and to devolve decision making to experts on the frontline as far as possible”.
Who are the experts on children on the front line—are they not parents?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Indeed, and also teachers. RSCs, for instance, go to meetings in schools to talk with parents about what is happening. At the last sitting, due to concerns about clarifying how the interaction between parents and RSCs will happen, we also committed to considering whether we can be more explicit in the guidance about what that interaction will look like; so we will come back with more to say on that.
As the Committee can see from the examples I gave, RSCs are already scrutinising the schools in their area that they have concerns about, with a view to intervening swiftly where necessary. In addition to the new powers for RSCs as set out in the Bill, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that we will be actively monitoring and reviewing all coasting schools and intervening when appropriate. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
How many of the schools identified for intervention are academies?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We gave figures at the last sitting. I do not have them to hand now but can get that information to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Is the noble Baroness aware that 25% of all failing schools are academies?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That is because a number of state-maintained schools have now converted to become academies; so they have shifted into being academies.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Is the noble Baroness seriously saying that the only failing academies are ones that have just transferred?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
No, we are not saying that.
Lord Nash
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is that we are not saying that, obviously; but as we made clear ad nauseam the last time we were here, there have been 1,500 failing maintained schools converted to academies, many of them very recently, all of which have been performing badly, many of them for years, under local authority-maintained status.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
But it is also agreed that one in seven of the schools that converted from the maintained sector as excellent or outstanding stand-alone academies went on to require improvement or serious measures.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
If we are arguing about statistics, will the Minister accept that the one I gave was given in a reply from his department?
The Earl of Listowel
Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to be reminded of the weight that the Government are placing on professional judgment. I was pleased to read in the Grand Committee proceedings and in the media that they are introducing this new college for school teachers, which will recruit, train and retain the very best teachers to send out to the schools that need them most. That sort of initiative is very welcome. I also welcome the Government’s drive to build trust in head teachers, recognise their expertise and give them as much authority as possible. My concern is that, because of the way in which the Government have set this up, they are putting huge pressures on head teachers to perform in a certain kind of way—which is to have good academic performance so that one will do well as a head teacher if one jumps through certain hoops, which is what head teachers will try to do. That distorts what they might do.
For instance, yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, organised a meeting with children from pupil referral units and hospital schools. We learned that a key issue for those young people is reintegration into mainstream education after their healthcare is completed, or whatever else it might be. A disincentive on the part of head teachers to accept them is that they are not likely to do so well academically. A young boy or girl coming out of hospital who has been away from school for quite some time is not likely to perform as well academically and there might be some hesitation on the part of the head teacher to take them back. I warn the Minister that I may well table an amendment at the next stage of the Bill to help us deal with the particular issue of children who have been out of school for some time and suggest that their data should be excluded from the performance statistics. A head teacher should not have to worry that she will be seen as failing because of a child who has been out of school and is not achieving academically as well as the others. As I say, I may well bring forward an amendment on that.
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
The noble Earl’s concern for vulnerable children is well known and entirely to his credit, but I wonder if he would acknowledge that the alternative to failing and failing and failing again is to succeed academically. The one thing which has bedevilled educational attainment over many decades has been low expectations: saying, “What can you expect? It is because of their miserable backgrounds and troubled families”, and all the rest of it. The answer is that we must have expectations. These young people deserve to achieve. I agree entirely with the noble Earl that pushing them too hard, too soon can be counterproductive, but the alternative of just sitting back and saying, “Well, they have such awful backgrounds, they are so vulnerable and they find life so difficult that we must not push them at all”, is something I could not go along with. I really believe that raising expectations is the whole thrust to success that this Government are so determined to achieve—and that is raising expectations for all children.
I know that noble Lords opposite have pointed out that some academies are failing. No one disputes that—of course there will be failures in any system, and they will made to stop failing and start succeeding. But if we are to give every child genuinely the best education, we have to look at what some academies have done brilliantly with the most vulnerable children in the most difficult circumstances and then pull the others up so that instead of 7%, 8% or 11% getting decent GCSEs, 90% do so. Listen to my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham and look at what he has done. Some of us have visited several of his schools and have seen what can be achieved.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
I point out to the noble Baroness that there are also local authority-controlled schools where one has seen a very similar turnaround. High expectations are not the preserve of academies alone. Good teachers always have high expectations.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
Absolutely. I would be the first person to say that there are some wonderful maintained schools and some very good local authorities. Nevertheless, it is true, and the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, made this point, that local authorities have had decades to get this right and have allowed far too many schools to fall below the standard and taken no action to improve that. It was right that central government should move in to try to do something about it. I am sure that noble Lords opposite would have alternative ways to do that; the Labour Government did a great deal when in power as a central authority to help to raise standards, and they are to be highly praised for the legacy that they left in London and so on. There is a good history of central government moving in when local government is failing, and there is no question that plenty of schools that have been taken out of local authority control have succeeded. That does not mean that there are not lots of excellent local authority-maintained schools.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I wonder if I may add something to what the noble Baroness has said. I am glad that she has raised this issue. I like to think that the raising of achievement in schools when I was a parent in London was due to a great deal of consultation with parents, councillors, industry and so on. That is not the point that I wanted to make.
I want to refer back to what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about the meeting that I chaired last night. I happen to have in front of me a PricewaterhouseCoopers report on achieving schools and the Achievement for All programme, but I will not go into that now.
I had a very interesting email this morning about coasting schools from one of the people at that meeting who is an academic studying pupil referral units, and I think that the noble Baroness may be interested in this. To summarise, she says that schools must be able to progress learning, not just count the number of GCSEs that they have. She said:
“If coasting schools are to be defined by academic progress why would this not include 100% of pupils progressing 100% of the time? Measurement should therefore be based on progressing learning for all children and young people regardless of background, challenge or need; outcomes should be measured by engagement in learning and impact on all children and young people’s social and academic progress”.
That is what the PricewaterhouseCoopers report emphasises.
The Earl of Listowel
If I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, one listens to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, talk about his schools and the transformation that they have wrought, and indeed one listens to the Minister talk about our local school here, and it is clearly a huge and most important change that is very much to be welcomed.
I suppose that I need to be careful not to strain at gnats when we are talking about bigger issues. I recognise that expectations about the educational attainment of young people in care have been too low in the past. We have said that they have had too difficult a time, it is tragic and we cannot push them. However, we need to be careful not to move from one extreme to another. Ultimately, the best thing is what the Government are trying to do: to recruit and retain the best professionals closest to the child who are in the position to make a judgment on just how hard to push that child forward and at the same time how gentle to be with that child—a nuanced, sensitive approach. The children who visited us yesterday—what to say? I agree with these measures and I am sorry that I have not expressed myself more clearly. I certainly agree that we should not let children down by having too low an expectation.
Baroness Pinnock
I thank noble Lords for the interesting debate that we have had around accountability. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the general support that he has given for the idea of trying to establish a greater degree of accountability within the system. I also thank him for reminding us that this is in fact a very nationalising, centralising approach to education, notwithstanding the remarks made by the Minister. In essence, all academies have to report to the Secretary of State, with one layer in between, which is the regional schools commissioner who is appointed by the Secretary of State. If that is not a centralising, nationalising approach to schools, I do not know what is. That is one of my problems with the creation of academies without any local accountability built in to the system.
Moving on to the regional schools commissioners, they are not regional in the accepted, geographic sense of the word. In my part of West Yorkshire, our regional schools commissioner is in—dare I say the word?—Lancashire. I have to tell you that it does not go down particularly well to be described as being part of the Lancashire—and a little bit of West Yorkshire—schools commissioner. I jest, in a sense, to make the point: because of the way that the regional schools commissioners are set up, they do not understand and know the regions. Most of the north-west is made up of very different communities from the old textile and engineering communities that I serve in West Yorkshire. For one man—it is a man—to try to understand and have that soft information, rather than always relying on the hard data, to make decisions about accountability is much to be regretted.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the shibboleth that is democratic accountability. We need to understand both those words. We are in danger, I think, of creating an education service in this country that has no, or very little, democratic input. For a service that is for every child, regardless of background, community or place, to have no democratically elected person to whom they can call on for help and guidance, and for those elected people to have no means by which to address those concerns, is a route down which we should not be going. Where else will those people turn? There is no point saying, as the Minister did, that parents are already writing to the reginal schools commissioners. No doubt they are—but they will not be some of the parents in the communities that I serve, for whom English is a second language and whose own literacy skills are not very good. They will not have those skills, so who does it fall on? Who in this chain will stand up for parents and their children who are not perhaps getting a fair deal locally? That is what I want to know and that is why this amendment was tabled. I have yet to hear the answers.
Those are my concerns about the words “democratic” and “accountability”. It is about having a local voice; someone who knows and who can be trusted and relied on to stand up for local people. I have yet to hear that. That is a huge shame and one that I think we will live to regret unless we create some means of achieving this outcome. Having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) In determining whether to make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England, the Secretary of State must consider the availability of a suitable sponsor with a value added measure above the national average.
( ) If no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must appoint as a sponsor a willing council-maintained school or local authority with a value added measure above the national average.”
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, this amendment takes us to Clause 7, which is about failing schools, not coasting schools. It makes academisation mandatory for all failing schools: those which on inspection are judged inadequate or in need of very significant improvements. We put forward this amendment at the behest of the Local Government Association, which is worried about its responsibilities for finding sponsors for such schools. I shall quote the association’s briefing:
“We are concerned about the capacity of the pool of current and potential academy sponsors to take on large numbers of additional schools. Councils are also reporting difficulty in finding sponsors for new schools or schools found inadequate by Ofsted. The DfE itself has already halted the expansion of some of the largest academy chains in response to concerns that rapid expansion has affected standards and Ofsted has issued critical reports on the performance of some chains. Recent DfE figures show that only 15% of the largest chains perform above the national average on an ‘added value’ measure, compared to 44 per cent of councils”.
This picks up work that has been done by the Sutton Trust in the two reports it issued this year and last year on academy chains. Summing up its findings in the 2015 report, the trust said:
“Overall, in comparison with the national figures for all secondary schools and academies … the sponsored academies in this analysis have lower inspection grades and are twice as likely to be below the floor standard. In 2014, 44% of the academies in the analysis group were below the government’s new ‘coasting level’ and 26 of the 34 chains that we have analysed had one or more schools in this group”.
It also noted that there were significant variations between chains and within chains with,
“a larger group of low-performing chains … achieving results that are not improving and may be harming the prospects of their disadvantaged pupils”.
It goes on:
“The contrast between the best and worst chains has increased in 2014. Some chains with high attainment for disadvantaged pupils have improved faster than the average for schools with similar 2012 attainment. In contrast, the lowest performing chains did significantly less well over the period 2012-14 than schools with similarly low 2012 attainment”
It is not surprising that the Sutton Trust’s main recommendation was that,
“the DfE and regional schools commissioners … should specify and operate clear, rigorous criteria for all sponsors”,
and that school-based federations and trusts should be expanded; that is, linking up well performing schools, sometimes perhaps in the local authority maintained sectors, with schools that are failing rather than necessarily making them into academies.
This is more or less precisely what this amendment is proposing. Subsection (1) suggests:
“In determining whether to make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England, the Secretary of State must consider the availability of a suitable sponsor with a value added measure above the national average”.
For example, the Harris Academy chain, which is very well regarded, would be regarded as a suitable sponsor. However, only 15%—quite a small group—of academy chains are in that category, although they are the larger academy chains.
The amendment goes on to provide that:
“If no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must appoint as a sponsor a willing council-maintained school or local authority with a value added measure above the national average”.
So the amendment picks up on the two proposals from the Sutton Trust report by saying on the one hand, “Look hard when you are choosing a sponsor—don’t just choose any old sponsor. Make sure that it is one with a very good record in coping with this sort of school”, while on the other hand it refers to where there is no local sponsor available.
It is certainly true that many academy chains concentrate on particular areas and that there are not always chains that are available and have schools locally. When you are part of an academy chain, it is quite important to be able to link up with other schools in the chain and be able to compare best practice. The school of which I am a governor is part of an academy chain, but no other local schools are part of it, and that poses problems. It means that we have to travel about 50 miles to go to a meeting—usually around the M25 at 6 o’clock in the evening, which is not the best thing to do—so as I say, there are problems with not having a local sponsor. Sometimes linking up with a strong local authority-maintained school is preferable, even if it is not itself an academy. Many local secondary schools are now academies and if you have a good, strong local academy, then putting the school under that umbrella is preferable to trying to link it up with a far-distant chain. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 15A and I agree with the sentiments espoused by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. It is surely sensible that a school should not be the subject of an academy order until or unless a sponsor has been identified as appropriate for that school as an academy. The alternative is for the school to be placed in a form of limbo, which as I see it cannot possibly be of any benefit to the children, parents or teachers or anyone else associated with the school. Can the Minister say, concerning the Bill, how many schools have already been designated as ready to be academised but have not yet been moved to that sector because for whatever reason it has been impossible to find an appropriate sponsor?
It is not clear what the DfE or perhaps the regional schools commissioner would do in such situations. Do they seek a local maintained school to take the failing school under its wing? Does the Minister anticipate that the suggestion made in the amendment relating to a local authority should apply in those situations? It would seem that there are good reasons why it should. I imagine that he will reject the amendment, however, so can he tell us what would happen if in these circumstances a sponsor cannot be found? I will have more to say on the question of sponsors in the sixth group, but for the moment I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I would like to respond to Amendment 15A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Sharp. This amendment concerns whether and how a regional schools commissioner would identify the most suitable sponsor for a maintained school that had failed.
Clause 7 makes it clear, as did our manifesto, that for any school judged inadequate by Ofsted an academy order must be made. The RSC will take responsibility for this, identifying the most suitable sponsor and brokering the new relationship between that sponsor and the school. RSCs are already responsible for approval of sponsors, subjecting prospective sponsors and their trusts to thorough scrutiny before they can be approved to take on sponsored academies. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that they consider all new sponsor applications in their region against robust and uniform criteria which are available, and they approve those which can demonstrate that they have the capacity and expertise to turn underperforming schools around. Through this rigorous assessment process, supported by the advice and challenge of their head teacher boards, RSCs ensure that prospective sponsors have a strong track record in educational improvement and financial management and that their proposed trust has high-quality leadership and appropriate governance.
RSCs are also responsible for monitoring and holding academy trusts and sponsors to account for their educational performance. They do this robustly through Ofsted inspection reports on the schools within a trust and published performance data. Trusts are also held to account for their financial management, governance and compliance by the Education Funding Agency. Information about MATs in these areas is transparent, with academy trust accounts audited and made publicly available. Where it is clear that a trust is not improving a school, the RSC will not hesitate to take action and re-broker it to a stronger trust.
As I have described, RSCs take a wealth of data and intelligence into account when identifying which sponsor should take responsibility for turning around a failed school. The tabled amendment requiring RSCs to take account of value-added performance and progress measures when identifying a sponsor for a failing maintained school is unnecessary. RSCs already look at a sponsoring school’s performance and, of course, in the future our new Progress 8 measure, by which secondary schools will be held to account, is a value-added methodology. In fact, the department has led the way in using added value to assess performance, publishing proposals on using such measures for chains and local authorities back in March.
The amendment also proposes that where there is not a sponsor of a high enough quality available, a failing school should be sponsored by a local authority maintained school or, indeed, directly by a local authority. This amendment is unnecessary because RSCs will ensure that a failing school is matched with an academy sponsor. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, RSCs have a wealth of good sponsors available already. There are 778 approved sponsors, all of have been subjected to the rigor described and the criteria I have outlined. RSCs are continually identifying and supporting additional outstanding schools in their area to become new sponsors. That is one of the benefits that RSCs have already brought to the programme.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for the figures she has just given us but is she saying that there have not been cases where a school has been designated to be an academy but has not been able to continue because there is no sponsor? She mentioned some 700 sponsors. Are these organisations just waiting in the wings for a letter saying, “Will you take over this school?” or is this a plan for if and when this Bill is implemented? It is not clear what the figure of 700 involves.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
There are 778 approved sponsors and about 20% are waiting to be matched with schools. The noble Lord asked which schools may need sponsoring. The precise number will vary from year to year and will depend on Ofsted inspections and test and examination results. We anticipate that as many as 1,000 failing maintained schools could potentially become sponsored academies under the new measures.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
I think the issue about how long schools wait before they find a match with a sponsor is very important. I had heard anecdotally—so this is the Minister’s opportunity to put it on the record—that quite a number of schools are now known as orphan schools because they have been taken away from one sponsor and have not yet been given another one. Does the department have a target time in which an alternative or a first sponsor should be found? What is the department’s record on achieving that target?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We look for a sponsoring match to happen as quickly as possible but one of the issues that this Bill is attempting to address is the delays caused by the very process that schools have to undergo at the moment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My question is not about that. Perhaps the Minister will write if she is not in a position to answer it now. It is not about the delay at the school end, it is about the delay at the department’s end in finding a suitable sponsor. Are there some schools—colloquially known as orphan schools—waiting for either an initial sponsor or a second sponsor? Also, does her department have a target time in which a sponsor must be found and what is the department’s record in reaching that target?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I think it would be best if I wrote to the noble Baroness as I do not have the figures directly to hand.
The academy trust structure also brings greater autonomy with a strong accountability framework. International evidence has shown this drives up standards. Academies operate under a robust accountability framework under which we are able to hold the trust directly to account for their school improvement and we have clear routes to intervene should concerns arise. We would not have the same robust accountability if a maintained school or a local authority took over responsibility for a failing school.
It is also not just about the freedoms and stronger accountability, though; it is also about some of the substantial advantages of operating in a multi-academy trust, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, identified. It is acknowledged that the best way to improve schools is through local school-to-school support, and the best, most rigorous, efficient and accountable way to do that is through such a multi-academy trust. People who run multi-academy trusts talk about the advantages of the freedoms, the sense of being in control of one’s own destiny, the career opportunities as people are employed across a group of schools, the ability to retain good staff and, crucially, the ability to share best practice. They talk about leadership development, the enhanced CPD and, on the operational side, the economies of scale and purchasing power of being in a MAT. They talk about the ability to have common school improvement, behaviour management systems, a common curriculum, common teaching pedagogy and systems and the limitless benefits of pupils moving from primary to secondary when a MAT has both types of school in its family.
Baroness Pinnock
What I am concerned about in what I am hearing is that the Minister is suggesting that that does not occur in the maintained sector. There is sharing. The schools forum, which all local authorities have to have, brings head teachers together to discuss the very things that she has just described: a common approach to training, personal development for teachers, the sharing of best practice and being able to determine the “destiny” of schools, as she puts it—I hope that in fact we are talking about the destiny of children within them; it always worries me when people talk about the schools rather than the children. None of the factors that she listed there is relevant only to academies. They apply also to maintained schools, and we ought to recognise that.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I did not say that they did not, but we are talking here about multi-academy trusts and why for failing schools it is a good option for them to be involved. Local school forums do indeed have a role but I think that many head teachers would talk about the positive benefits that they have found in setting up a multi-academy trust. That is all I am saying. I am not saying that local maintained groups of schools are not able to form good partnerships themselves.
Baroness Pinnock
Would the Minister therefore support outstanding local maintained schools becoming a sponsor for these schools? As she has just said that they can also behave in the same way, there does not seem to be any argument against a local maintained school becoming a sponsor for a failing school.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
They could certainly become an academy and do that, but they would have to have the same legal structure. I shall come on to that in a second.
Given that 65% of our secondary schools are now academies, it is increasingly sponsors for primary schools that we are seeking to source and develop. In small primary schools the MAT structure is even more critical, again making it necessary for sponsoring schools to be academies themselves that are able to form such a MAT rather than leaving small sponsored primary schools standing alone. We would certainly hope that any maintained school with the expertise, capacity and enthusiasm to support a struggling school would consider converting to academy status in order to do this, in the process unlocking all the benefits and opportunities that I have described.
We also anticipate that as more schools become academies and local authorities have fewer maintained schools left, as many already do, we will see members of local authority teams who are skilled at school improvement spinning out to set up their own MATs, and this development would be most welcome.
In conclusion, I shall quote Maura Regan, CEO of Carmel Education Trust, who attended our sponsor event last week. She said:
“We have to accept that what has happened historically in many local authorities has not worked. We are about revolution—we need to take a break from the past and embrace a new model whereby school leaders are increasingly in charge of their own destinies”.
In light of that, as well as my explanations, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
I was interested in what the Minister said about the sponsorship process. I would be interested to learn a bit more about it—how sponsors are selected; how they are inducted; and how they are qualified. I guess there is a certain sensitivity in that one wants people to sponsor, so one does not want to place too much of a burden upon them; but on the other hand, it is important that if they sponsor, it is a success and there is not a clash of cultures but complementary working together. The Minister may like to write to me, or perhaps she will say a few words now about that process and particularly about induction so that we ensure that sponsors perhaps spend time in a school sitting at the back of the class so they have a sense of what it is like at the coalface—the chalkface, I should say.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am very happy to write to the noble Earl on that point.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Will the Minister clarify one point? I do not have a copy of the Academies Act with me and I have therefore been unable to check it, but my memory of it is that, in effect, where a school fails, it is initially up to the local authority to effect, so to speak, the process of academisation. The Bill changes it so that:
“The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England that is eligible for intervention by virtue of section 61 or 62”.
That means that the Secretary of State is now the person to take action. In effect, the Minister said that local authorities do not have to worry at all about this because the regional schools commissioners will take responsibility for it. They will have to worry about whether there is a good academy chain. I said that it is important to take local issues into account. There are a lot of academy chains that are not performing very well at the moment as well as those that are. It is not preferable to bring in a poor-performing academy chain rather than use a strong local school. The preferable solution is to link up at a local level so that the school has locally available mentors that it can easily talk to. I rather object, in some senses, to the way that the Minister said, “Don’t worry any more because the regional schools commissioners are going to take this problem and they’ll sort it out because all our academy chains are so super”. They are not. The Government recognise that. This is an important amendment. We want a more sympathetic approach to it. As we are in Grand Committee, we cannot vote here, so I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is right that the key to school improvement is local school-to-school support. I could not agree more. The academy model is now focused on that, so sponsors will either be a local sponsor in the local MAT formed out of a local outstanding school, and we have created several hundred in the past couple of years, or a part of a national MAT with a local hub. That is essential. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness.
Lord Addington
“(4) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) If, by the relevant accountability measures laid down by government regulation an Academy is “failing” or “coasting”, it is by virtue of this section eligible for intervention if the governing body of the Academy—
(a) have been informed of their Academy’s assessment over a three year period by a Regional Schools Commissioner;(b) have been notified that the Secretary of State considers the Academy to be coasting; and(c) have not subsequently been notified that the Secretary of State no longer considers the Academy to be coasting.””
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this amendment is an attempt to correct something that I see as rather an error in the Bill. We have this new condition of “coasting”, which is bad—I think that that is probably the great driver here—and we have a solution to coasting schools, which is that they become academies. We have heard a great deal in the Committee—and it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for three seconds—that occasionally, at certain points in the future—let us not argue about frequency—academies will start to coast. It has already been agreed that they can fail. My amendment is an attempt to try to tie academies into the existing structure that could deal with an academy that has gone wrong.
I feel that we will have a great deal more fun arguing about exactly what the correct definition of “coasting” is. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, looked, shall we say, a bit like a dog that had found a nice juicy scent when we talked about the academic definition before. That is something which any Minister should be very wary of. The fact of the matter is that we will have a definition, and no matter how you tweak it, occasionally an academy is going to fall within that definition. If coasting is wrong for one school it must, I hope, be wrong for any school. While, as always, the amendment is probing in nature, it is an attempt to bring such a school in.
Amendment 17 presents a slightly different way of basically removing the fur from this moggie. It would insert a new clause. One thing I like about it is that it goes back to nurse; it goes to Ofsted, a body that can take a look around, which knows the system and which can make a judgment. We should think about that because we know how Ofsted works and how its judgments go, and it is in place. Also, using Ofsted in conjunction with regional schools commissioners is probably quite a sensible idea. We have a body whose judgment we trust and which we have used. We should try to put something into the Bill for academies which are making mistakes and doing something wrong—there could be 1,001 problems. I think that Uplands Junior School in Leicester has lost half its teachers today and is to become an academy. Who knows what is going on there? The Minister is looking at me strangely, but it was reported only today so I understand why he may have missed it. It was brought to my attention very briefly.
Lord Addington
Perhaps we can talk about Uplands school at length on Report.
If we go down this path, we will have situations where things go wrong. We need to have an intervention process for an academy that gets it wrong. If it is the entire chain because there is something that is happening through it, we will probably need to intervene on the whole thing. Amendment 16 is just a way of putting in the Bill a provision that says, “Let us try to use what is already in place and so get some sort of solution to this”. It is basically about starting again. I hope that there is no fundamental objection to the amendment and that we will hear how the thinking is developing on something which is an inevitability, no matter how infrequent it is. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 17, 21 and 26 to 29 in this group. Amendments 21 and 26 to 29 are identical, straightforward and, I believe, not in need of explanation because they are consequential on Amendment 17. Clause 7(2) inserts a new subsection in the 2010 Act which states that:
“The Secretary of State must make an Academy order”.
The amendments seek to reinstate Section 4(1) in the 2010 Act which states that:
“The Secretary of State may make an Academy order”,
for a school that is “eligible for intervention”. These amendments address various parts of the Bill where reference is made to the “must convert” duty. They are the removal of the duty to consult in Clause 8, the “Duty to facilitate conversion” in Clause 10, the:
“Power to give directions to do with conversion”,
in Clause 11 and the:
“Power to revoke Academy orders”,
in Clause 12.
The point about these amendments is that, rather than there being a presumption that the solution for one school is a solution for all schools, they propose that each school should be considered on its merits. Ministers say that they want to help all schools improve. If they are sincere in that aim, we believe that options other than forced academy status should be available to the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Listowel
I am thinking of, for example, the need to build a children’s home or to produce more affordable housing in a community. Often in those circumstances, the local community is in practice very resistant to having that children’s home or affordable housing. In principle, one should consult local people about their local environment and act upon their wishes. In practice, it can sometimes be so difficult to build a children’s home in certain areas that they get built in the worst or least popular areas, where the local community is less likely to be vociferous, because that is where it is possible to do so. In the case that the Minister is arguing about it being so important that we do better for the education of our children and that the academy model—I know that we are debating this—has been shown to be quite effective in improving those outcomes much of the time, does he see that there should perhaps be some flexibility on how much weight one gives to local people in this choice?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
That is an interesting comment by the noble Earl. Flexibility is what I am looking for in this amendment because this part of the Bill contains none. It is interesting that the noble Earl referred to housing. A word which he did not use but was, I think, suggesting is nimbyism, where people say, “It is admirable that there should be such a structure or facility, but just not right next to my house”. I am always dubious in such situations. If the Minister has not looked at it already, he should look at the Housing and Planning Bill, which was launched in another place a few weeks ago, which seeks to close down a lot of people’s ability to object to those sorts of developments as well. That is something that I will say more about on another amendment. There is a pattern with this Government closing down discussion and dissent and getting their own way regardless of what people think. I think that that is undemocratic, and it is important that we should speak out against it wherever we encounter it, in legislation or in any other setting.
In this regard, the Minister and the Secretary of State are just plain wrong. No one is infallible. The Secretary of State needs to accept that and, for goodness’ sake, give herself some flexibility. I hope that the Minister will now realise that in 2015 you cannot just gag people who care passionately about the education of their children and tell them, as you might say to one of their children, to sit down and shut up as if they were of no importance at all. That is what is effectively being said to parents in the Bill. That cannot be right, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the comments that I have made in this amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I support Amendment 17 onwards. I was sorry to miss such a lot of last Thursday’s consideration of the Bill. I had to leave, as those present on Thursday will know, in order to get home before the bonfire celebrations in Lewes. That I did, just, dodging flaming torches, effigies and the burning of David Cameron, Sepp Blatter and Jeremy Clarkson among others. However, I have caught up by reading Hansard. As an antidote to fireworks and bonfires, I dipped into some of the former education Bills, such as the Education and Inspections Act and the Academies Act, as well as other Acts going through Parliament at the moment, such as the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill.
Two things strike me about that reading. One is that we must have the most complex, baroque and byzantine education system in the world, and it does not seem to be getting us very far. The other is that education cannot exist in a vacuum. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Hunt, are right to have pointed out on several occasions the connections between government policies—for example, the involvement of communities in sport and, as I have said, the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, which emphasises devolution. That leads me to believe that there cannot be only one form of governance that is suitable for a school, and that local communities and institutions must have a say. We all know that parental involvement in a child’s education is a very good predictor of success for that child or those children. So local structures are important.
Amendment 17 raises several interesting issues and questions for the Minister regarding special measures for improvement and consultation. I repeat that not just one system for anything will work. My noble friend has pointed out the investigations and action by the Catholic Education Service.
The Minister may well say that the amendment would make things too complex and too long. The Bill of course gives all power to the Secretary of State for Education, and we are suggesting here that that power should be devolved and broadened. We have heard a great deal in Committee and at Second Reading about how a single day at a failing school is too long for a child. I agree that poor education is a terrible thing, but it is worth looking more closely at what that poor education means. I myself do not think that one day at a failing school will do all that much damage. Poor education might of course be happening in just one subject at the school, or it may be inherent in the school system, which is what we are concerned about. A change of staff may be required, but the amendment suggests taking care to get good governance arrangements to avoid it. I agree that sometimes the speed of change is of the essence, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, that does not necessarily mean lack of consultation.
We have heard about the possibility of delays in sponsorships. Speaking of speed and change, I remember being a parent governor and the chair of the governors of a primary school in Wandsworth. We had—if I dare use the term—a coasting head teacher. We, the governors, persuaded him to leave. I will not go into the methods used. We then appointed a dynamic, ambitious head and within months the school became a dynamic, ambitious school. Parents and governors knew what had to be done and did it. I am not advocating that as a general theory for change, but there is more than one way of doing things and parents should be listened to.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, I cannot but respond to the kind remarks of my noble friend. They were very generous. I could see the word “but” coming and it came. I want to say now, to retain what scintilla of reputation I have in Scotland, that I do not want the Scotsman tomorrow morning to report me as being against democracy. I believe in democracy. It is the least worst system but it works to the best possible effect. It is in Hansard so it must be true.
If there is a need for this tidying-up, I think the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Addington does it well. However, I will be interested to hear whether it is necessary. If it is, let us do it and get on with it. One of the things said quite a bit in this discussion is that by implication the government proposal is that there is only one way of changing schools, whereas local authorities have myriad wisdom. I am not sure that is true. I suspect that local authorities are more likely to be monolithic in their response to the need for change than the academy system which, if well regulated—I underline that—encourages variety and different forms of change. These different forms of change and development may well be necessary for the variety of schools in questions.
In terms of democratic accountability, if we say that academies are not the single way, we run the risk of returning to the local authority being the single way. What were they doing when schools started coasting? It is not an immediate process; it is slow progress. What were all these democratic institutions that we have—the local education authority, the director of education or equivalent and local councillors—doing? You ask who they can go to. They can go to the local councillor or to their MP.
Baroness Pinnock
I feel that I have to put the case for local councillors and their involvement in local education, since it is being not painted in the best possible light by my noble friend Lord Sutherland. I think that local management of schools came in about 25 years ago; I am looking around for some people who know better than I do. I have been chair of a large comprehensive secondary school in the maintained sector for a lot of that period. It is regarded as good by Ofsted, I am pleased to say, its value added is well over 1,000 and I hope we will continue to do well on the other scores of Progress 8 and all the rest. Its intake is below average nationally and locally. This is a local maintained school with local involvement where things can go right. I worry that our mindset seems to be that only local authorities can create good schools. I do not support that argument because it is plainly not supported by the facts. Equally, I do not support the argument that only academisation can do the same. That is not supported by the facts either.
The facts are that neither the structures of local authorities nor the structures of academies produce good schools. What produces good schools is something much more difficult than waving a magic wand and having a different structure. What creates good schools is good, outstanding leadership; a good cohort of leadership teams supporting the head teacher; a governing body that works well in supporting and challenging the school; and a local authority, or whatever the structure, that does the additional support improvement and provides professional training and development and all the rest of it. We know that that is what creates good schools and good opportunities for children in education, yet we insist on changing structures. But changing education structures does not achieve good schools—we know that.
A school in my own area—a leafy suburb school, as it happens—decided that it would become an academy. Within a year, it was in special measures and required improvement; that is the worst and the lowest possible rating. The school was good when it started, but in a year it went from being up here to being down there. Why? Because of the lack of the very factors that I have just described: failure of the head teacher; failure of the governing body; and no group to support it because it was outside local authority control. That is what we have to look at.
I am passionate about education and passionate about children getting a fair deal. Nowhere else are they going to get a fair deal, except through this route. Yet we insist on talking about structures. For goodness’ sake, let us talk about how we are going to deal with the national shortage of head teachers of any calibre, let alone outstanding ones. That would be a start.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I agree with the noble Baroness’s diagnosis of what makes a good school. That is true. Children, and the way that they are dealt with in the education process, are the focus of this—they have one education. I absolutely share the passion of the noble Baroness.
Structures will not fix it all, but structures have made a difference. The academy system has made differences that are very important and have improved the lot of many children. When the current chief inspector of Ofsted was put in place to be head of a failing school, my goodness, he turned it around. That was a structural point. Unless the powers are there to do that, that opportunity will be missing, and that is what we are talking about today.
In view of the passion expressed, I have to share again, as I did in my Second Reading speech, that I was involved in declaring the first failing school. It would have been useless to go to the parents, the governing body, the local authority or the local community; they all hated what was said truthfully. That is the other side of the coin.
Where I am still, if you like, swinging a bit in the breeze—this relates to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson—is on the use of the word “must” in Clause 7(2). That does cause me some reservations and worry. Whether it will persist to Report that the Secretary of State “must” make an academy order, I do not know. Sometimes, and the point has been made, drafting in the right leadership and head teacher can help, especially in an emergency situation. My worry about the word “must” is that it may exclude the immediate action that has been taken in the past and could be taken now. Making an academy order and setting up sponsorship will take time, and sometimes the school in question has not got time. So I have that worry and am very interested to hear what will be said from the Government side on this. I will reserve my position on that one until Report.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I, too, support Amendment 17 and have great sympathy with the intentions behind Amendment 16, which I think raises the same question but addresses it from a different angle. Let us be clear: we all share the same ambitions of all schools being good schools and of action being taken if they are coasting or failing. Nobody is against that and sometimes it is important to restate that, because we get pushed to either extreme in arguing the points. So we are all on the same side in that, but the amendment tries to explore some of the options regarding what action should be taken. That is where the difference of opinion is—on the question of what to do, not on the need to take action. Therefore, we should try to resist accusing each other of not caring about kids in failing schools. That is not why we are in this business and why we are sitting in this Room.
The amendment picks out two or three weaknesses in the Bill. The first thing to do is to address failing and struggling academies in the same conversation and piece of legislation that address other schools. I cannot see that politically there is much wrong with that, and practically I am not sure why one structure should be excluded from the consideration. Therefore, I welcome the fact that what happens to failing academies is brought into this discussion. The only reason for excluding it from the discussion would be either if you believed that there was no such thing as a failing academy, which we know is not the case, or if you could honestly guarantee that merely moving it to another academy sponsor would always, in every single circumstance without any possible exception, be the solution. Even if you thought that, I do not know why you would want to put that in primary legislation, because if it is true now, it might not be true next term or the year after or the year after that. That is essentially what is being done in this part of the legislation. It is putting in primary legislation that either an academy will never fail or the solution will always be another sponsor. We are saying that the solution will sometimes be another sponsor but not always, so we should not leave out from primary legislation the option of taking a different course of action.
I think we also agree that an option might be school-to-school support. That might involve getting in good teachers from other schools to lead. Something that we have not taken up as a generic point is that schools need to belong. I believe in interdependence as much as independence for schools. The umbrella organisation under which a school lives, survives and is supported and which challenges the school is important. That is essentially what this argument is about. At the moment, we have two types of umbrellas: we have academy chains and multi-academy trusts—two phrases for the same thing—and we have local authorities. All we are saying here is that sometimes one will be the solution and sometimes it will be the other.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who is far more experienced than anybody else in this Room in dealing with failing and underachieving schools. I hope he accepts that none of us—certainly not me and I think I can speak for all my colleagues on the Labour Bench—would justify a failing school being with a failing local authority. That would not make sense. The most important point that the noble Lord made was in his contribution to the first group of amendments. He said that you have to ask yourself: if a school is coasting, why has the local authority not taken action? Sometimes you will come to the conclusion that the school has not been well supported by the family of which it is a member and that it would be better off with another family. That is why the Labour Government put lots of schools into academy chains.
However, sometimes the solution is to do something about the local authority. I spent three years in the department doing something about local authorities and I shall pick out just three—Hackney, Islington and Liverpool, on all of which I led the interventions. The noble Lord will remember that they were all absolutely miserable local authorities and miserable families to belong to, but I do not think that any school now would not be proud to be part of Islington, Hackney or Liverpool. The irony is that every one of them had a different solution: Hackney’s was a trust; Islington was put with a not-for-profit partner; and Liverpool got new leadership at local authority level and is now doing well. So I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, does not think that, whatever this debate is about, the Labour Bench is excusing poor local authorities.
To be honest, it was the Labour Government who took action against poor local authorities because the Tories before us had not do so; no one had taken action by 1997. It was us who brought in the legislation and us who took the action. We have been around long enough to know that sometimes there are good local authorities where you would want to place a school. So should we really say that where you have a failing academy in a good local authority, we do not want a solution whereby it cannot be part of that local authority family of schools? Why can that not be one of the solutions? We are not saying that it must in all circumstances, but why can a failing academy in a good local authority not become part of that family of schools?
Although the amendment does not say so, I would also ask why it cannot become part of a multi-academy trust run by a maintained school. I was in the Lilian Baylis school last week with a Select Committee, and it was utterly outstanding—it was a joy to spend the morning there. However, it is not an academy, so it cannot set up a multi-academy trust. I do not know why you would deny a school neighbouring Lilian Baylis the right to belong to a multi-academy trust set up and led by Lilian Baylis, which is an outstanding and exceptional school. It is not allowed to do it until it becomes an academy. That is the nature of the discussion; it is not about whether to take action but about whether we are closing down options on doctrinaire grounds that would be better left open.
My last question has not been answered, so I take this opportunity to ask it. If Clause 7 goes ahead, it will place an awful lot more responsibility on regional schools commissioners. From my involvement in a number of regions, which are very large, I know that the commissioners are really stretched. I am not confident that they have the resources to do the jobs that are asked of them. If they get these additional responsibilities, will the Minister take this opportunity to let the Committee know what estimates he has made about what extra resources regional schools commissioners will have and what allocation of resources he will undertake?
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
I shall briefly respond, since I have been challenged on this—and that is good, because I respect my noble friend and what she has achieved over the years, not least in looking at local authorities. There is a separate question of how you deal with local authorities that are not performing; the Ofsted inspection of local authorities is one way of going about it. That is a very important question but the question today, in this Bill, is when you have notification from the DfE or wherever that a school is coasting and the evidence is all there, what you do tomorrow? The Bill suggests a route that has proven evidential foundations. No one is claiming that all academies are perfect; there are some real problems. On the other hand—this is where the point about local authorities comes in, and I want to clarify my own position here—I would not want to hand that school back to the local authority under which it developed the position of either coasting or failing. There has to be a route through that, which is what the Bill attempts to do. The local authority has all its democratic processes, education committees and the lot—they are all there. If the school was allowed to drift into coasting status, action is needed, and the last action I would recommend is to go back to the same local authority.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment. My noble friend said more eloquently than I can all that I have to say, so I shall keep my remarks brief.
I feel conflicted in listening to this debate because the Government have taken such an intransigent line on there being only one solution to improve the performance of schools—that is, to make them academies. Because of that, I feel pushed into a position that is not actually mine. I do not think that local authorities are the be-all and end-all. Like my noble friend, I, too, chaired improvement boards in many local authorities when I was a Minister—including in Manchester, which was not easy what with coming from there. I was quite clear what my responsibilities were: to call the local authority to account. I think many Ministers have done that, too. The dichotomies that are inevitably a result of the position that the Government have taken are very regrettable because they prevent us debating the real issues about how we can best put the ingredients into schools, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, identified them, that will help them all succeed.
I take issue with three points. The reason why I support the amendment is that it is trying to keep options open and to make the process of deciding the way forward, when a school is coasting or underperforming, one that must consider a range of options instead of going down only one route. The first point, as I said, is the Government’s assumption that academisation can be the only solution. My noble friend is quite right: you can sustain that position only if you think that that will in every single circumstance, 100%, improve every school. We know from the evidence, although the Government are reluctant to talk about it in any reasonable way, that that is not the case. Academisation, certainly over a period of time, does not necessarily produce the ingredients that we know are required for excellence in education.
Secondly, we have heard a lot of comments about this Bill handing responsibility and accountability for performance back to professionals, and away from local authorities who have not held schools to account. Let us just be clear that when schools underperform, the first people responsible are the head teacher and the teachers in that school. They are responsible for that. Yes, local authorities have had a duty to call those schools to account but not all professionals are good ones; not all head teachers are good, either. I do not want that point to be lost because so far in this debate it has been.
Thirdly, I feel very strongly that the provisions in the Bill that would completely cut out parents from any say in the process of what happens to an underperforming or coasting school that their child attends is completely wrong and cannot be justified. My children are now well grown up and I am into a generation of grandchildren. However, if I was directly responsible for children in such a school I would be absolutely incensed that I could have no say and would not be called to a meeting. That is wrong in principle. In terms of the outcomes that such a process would achieve, it would be regrettable.
I support the spirit of this amendment for those reasons. We need a much more nuanced debate and to retain the possibility that there are other ways forward for some schools. We certainly should involve parents.
The Earl of Listowel
Before the Minister replies, I want to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, if she might help with a bit of clarification. Before asking her that question, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his helpful comments earlier. Perhaps I should have said that I have an interest in this area: I am a landowner and I am interested in property development.
I think the noble Baroness also attended the meeting at the beginning of the week with the head teachers and regional schools commissioners. What I found most interesting about that was the impact on governance that academisation seems to have. The noble Baroness will be aware that the Chief Inspector of Schools has been concerned for quite some time about the variability in the quality of governance in schools. There was quite a discussion of governance in that meeting. What struck me listening to that discussion was that perhaps the academy process is a little like Teach First—or, for social work, Step Up—because it suddenly gives the opportunity to bring a whole new pool of talent, drive and expertise into the governing bodies. It seems possible that one justification for the Government’s process is that as a systemic approach it is a way to bring a whole slew of expertise into the governance and leadership of schools that is not so easily available by the normal process. I have not had experience as a school governor. Would the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, care to comment?
Baroness Pinnock
I am happy to respond. I am still a school governor and many noble Lords will be aware that the governance of maintained schools has had to change, and rightly so, for the reasons that have been given. By September of this year, school governing bodies had been completely overhauled. Many school governors are now co-opted for their specific expertise or experience. On my governing body we have two people who work in local businesses, an IT expert, someone from the finance sector to help with that side of things, as well as a couple of parent governors, staff governors, and by choice, a local authority governor. School governance has been substantially strengthened by these regulations and, where it is done well, they will inject two important elements. One is expertise and understanding, along with keeping the involvement of staff members and parents, and the other is that it is locally based. At the school where I remain on the governing body, it is local business people who are involved. That would be true across the piece, which is to everyone’s enormous advantage.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 16, 17, 21 and 26 to 29, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Addington, Lord Watson, Lord Hunt and the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Bakewell. I will try to keep my remarks to the point but, before doing so, I will respond to a couple of accusations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The first, that we are being dishonest, is quite an accusation and I would take great objection to it if I thought he really meant it. He said that it is dishonest that we should just pass a law turning every school into an academy. Maybe if he feels that is something we should do, he would like to bring an amendment to that effect. I made it clear last week in response to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and again in a letter this morning which I hope he has now received, that the default position for a coasting school is not to become an academy. I suspect that in many cases they may well be able to improve sufficiently on their own or with limited support. I hope I have made that absolutely clear.
Secondly, there was a suggestion that I never mention maintained schools. That is partly because the Bill is about academies and I am trying to keep to the point. Of course there are many successful maintained schools and I pay tribute to them. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, took me on a most enjoyable trip to Morpeth School in Tower Hamlets, which I was particularly impressed with. I was struck by its approach to CPD.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for his comments. This comes back to the points raised by my noble friends Lady Hughes and Lady Morris. From the tone of the Bill, and the fact that schools will be forced to become academies because the Secretary of State has no choice, it is clear that in the end that is the option which the Government want. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Knight is that the Government really believe that academisation is the only route. They do not understand why any maintained school does not want to be an academy, despite the fact that many of us are involved in very successful maintained schools which do not. None the less, the Government have decided that they all ought to be academies. This is quite clearly the policy. Why on earth do they not just do that? What I do not understand is why we have to go through the charade that we are debating today? With respect to the Minister, he has to be forced into saying something positive about non-academy schools because his whole tenor throughout this, is to quote examples from academies. I must challenge him by asking why the Government will not come clean on what their policy really is. I just do not understand it.
Lord Nash
I will try and make it clear again. Our approach to failing and inadequate schools, category 4 schools, is that they must become a sponsored academy. That is not our approach to coasting schools, as I hope I have made absolutely clear.
The amendment seeks to address noble Lords’ concerns on a number of points. First, that academies as well as maintained schools should become eligible for intervention when they fail or meet the coasting definition. Secondly, that the Bill proposes to remove consultation on academy conversion when a maintained school is judged inadequate. Thirdly, that a duty is placed on the governing body and local authority to progress academy conversion in such circumstances, and finally that, if necessary, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to revoke an academy order. I shall deal with these points in turn.
First, on failing and coasting academies, I agree entirely with noble Lords that failure and wider underperformance must be tackled wherever it occurs, whether in a maintained school or in an academy. As I set out when we debated the coasting definition last week, academies are governed by a different legal regime from maintained schools. They are run by charitable companies known as academy trusts which enter into a contractual relationship with the Secretary of State through the signing of a funding agreement. It is this agreement that governs how an academy will operate and how the Secretary of State will hold it to account for its performance.
The vast majority of the more than 5,300 open academies and free schools are performing well. In the small number of cases where we have concerns, I can assure the House that regional schools commissioners are already taking swift and effective action to drive improvements and, subject to the passage of this Bill, RSCs will hold all academies to account against the coasting definition just as rigorously as they will maintained schools. To demonstrate our commitment to continually reviewing our approach and ensuring that poorly performing academies are robustly challenged, we have already added a new coasting clause to the model funding agreement showing explicitly that we intend to tackle all schools which are coasting. This gives the Secretary of State formal powers to terminate a funding agreement where an academy is coasting. Even where academies do not have this specific clause in their agreement, I can assure noble Lords that RSCs will still hold them to account against the coasting definition.
Lord Addington
Could the Minister just repeat where that is? That is the real essence of my amendment. Could he repeat where the intervention on coasting academies is?
Lord Nash
RSCs have already shown they can act quickly to bring about improvements. Since September 2014 when RSCs first took up post, they have issued 58 pre-warning and warning notices to academy and free school trusts. In the same period they have also moved 83 academies and free schools to new trusts or sponsors, compared with 13 in the previous academic year. For example, Ipswich Academy in Suffolk was judged to require special measures in January 2015. The RSC acted swiftly to identify a new sponsor for the school and Paradigm Trust has taken on the school from September 2015. Ofsted undertook a monitoring visit in late September and judged that leaders and managers were taking effective action towards the removal of special measures.
In addition, Thetford Academy in Norfolk was judged to require special measures by Ofsted in February 2013. We brought in Inspiration Trust as a new sponsor in September 2013 to run the school. That was seven months later, as compared with the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred, where 22 months later Uplands School has yet to become an academy—I will give some more detail on that in a minute. Provisional 2015 results indicate that even under our tougher accountability standards, 47% of pupils achieved five good GCSEs compared to 28% in 2011. Ofsted inspected the academy in December 2014 and judged it to be good with outstanding leadership, describing it as, “transformed beyond recognition”.
These are just two examples of the robust, decisive action that RSCs are taking to tackle underperformance, and of the positive impact they are already having on the school system. Therefore the proposal—that where an academy is judged inadequate or meets the coasting definition it should be eligible for intervention—does not need to be introduced in this Bill as RSCs are already taking action to secure improvements where necessary.
I turn now to the issue of removing consultation. Our manifesto committed to turning every failing maintained school into a sponsored academy, and Clause 7 makes provision for that. As I said in my opening remarks last week, we place children first in our school system and the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that children do not spend any longer than possible in a failing school. A day lost in a child’s education is a day lost forever, and I beg to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, on this point. We believe that there needs to be a clear course of action when a school is judged inadequate and that there cannot be any question or debate about what the right solution for that school might be. We must be completely clear, as our manifesto was, that becoming an academy with the support of a sponsor will always be the solution where a school has failed. Every minute spent on consultation is a minute that could be spent on turning the school around. Clause 8 therefore removes the requirement for the governing body to consult on whether the school should become an academy in such circumstances. It is clear that it would be nonsensical to carry out a consultation when our manifesto was so clear that the sponsored academy solution would be the outcome in this scenario. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Watson, say in Committee last week, “Yes, the Government have the right to implement their manifesto”.
It is crucial to remember that consultation would be removed only in the most serious cases of underperformance. Where a school voluntarily seeks academy status, I agree completely that the school community should contribute its views. In that instance, the governing body is choosing to enter into new arrangements. However, where a school has failed or is otherwise causing concern, there is no choice. Parents will want to see swift and decisive action to bring about urgent transformation.
I want to re-emphasise that this is not about removing democracy or excluding parents, as some have claimed both in the House and in the other place. It is about ensuring that there is a clear course of action in place to improve the very worst schools in our country. We demand immediate action in other instances of failure, such as when an NHS trust is placed in special measures, so why should we expect any less for our schools? It takes on average a year from the time a school is judged inadequate to open as a sponsored academy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I cannot resist intervening on that. The whole point is that when we have a failing NHS foundation trust, there are a number of options available to the regulators, whether it is the NHS Trust Development Authority or Monitor; it is not just one-size-fits-all. That really is all that noble Lords are saying here. When it comes down it, if you substitute “may” for “must” in the crucial clause, it is still quite clear where the thrust of the policy is going, but at least that would give some discretion to Ministers. There might be some circumstances where they might want to look at a different option.
I am glad that the Minister has raised the issue of what happens in relation to NHS bodies because I am absolutely clear that both in law and in practice there is a range of options. Something happened to a trust that I was involved in, and the chairman and chief executive of a neighbouring trust have basically become the chairman and chief executive of that one. As I say, there are options. What the Government are saying is that there will be absolutely no option whatever. Actually, I find it quite extraordinary that Ministers do not want to give themselves a little discretion and headroom.
Lord Nash
I note the noble Lord’s intervention. He has not disappointed me; we discussed this morning where comparisons might be made with the NHS, so I knew that he would jump up because he has vast experience in the matter of the health service. My point is that action in the NHS is immediate and swift. I shall come on to explain the “must” and “may” point. There are circumstances in which the Secretary of State may be able to revoke her academy order, so it would not always be “must”.
As to the point I made about NHS trusts, I fundamentally agree with those who say, “Should we not have a similarly urgent and clear response to tackling school failure?”. On too many occasions we have seen local authorities and governing bodies putting up barriers and delaying processes in order to prevent the school becoming a sponsored academy. A case in point is Uplands, which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned earlier, which has been in special measures for 22 months. The IEB was appointed by the local authority in December 2013. It considered a number of proposed sponsors, a missed opportunity for much-needed change. I first wrote to the local authority confirming that I was minded to intervene in February of this year and, after much debate and challenge, the Secretary of State was finally able to reconfirm her decision to appoint her own IEB in September of this year. This was especially needed in the light of Ofsted’s most recent inspection in June confirming that the school was not making enough progress to remove special measures under the local authority’s IEB. A sponsor match has now finally been able to be made.
Lord Addington
The important thing about Uplands is that it has lost half its teachers. Half the teachers at the school have resigned. That is what has caused the headlines; nothing else.
Lord Nash
I am happy to introduce the noble Lord to the people involved in this because the lack of progress under the local authority was, I am afraid, extremely disappointing.
Another example of delay was the Warren school in Barking and Dagenham. The Warren was judged inadequate by Ofsted in February 2013. The governing body and the local authority were opposed to academy status and in October that year the existing governing body voted against the sponsored academy solution. When the Secretary of State decided to appoint an IEB and issue an academy order, the local authority and the governing body made an application to the High Court to prevent this from taking place. When the case finally got to court in July 2014, the judge dismissed the claim on all counts. The school finally opened as an academy in September 2014 with the Loxford Trust, some 19 months after first being judged inadequate by Ofsted.
I emphasise that although the Bill proposes to remove the formal requirement to consult on academy conversion for failing schools, parents will still have opportunities to have a say in the future of their child’s school. Once a sponsor has been identified for a school, it is in their interests to engage parents and begin to build a positive relationship with them from the outset. They will want to involve parents in their plans and seek their views on their proposed approach for bringing about improvement during the conversion process. I shall say more about engaging parents in these situations in the later group of amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, made some points to which I would like to respond. I pay tribute to her chairmanship of the Birmingham Education Partnership. I was meeting with Sir Mike Tomlinson this morning and we were both singing her praises. Lilian Baylis is of course an outstanding school. We would be delighted for it to become an academy and a sponsor. The issue that we have, we can talk about this in more detail offline, is that the best way to get the maximum organisational benefits out of a multi-academy trust is for it to be in the same legal structure. No one can argue with that. We can go into a lot of detail on it but that is the practical reason.
As for resourcing the RSCs, I made a point on this earlier but we will be resourcing up the RSCs to cater for more work. I cannot comment on this precisely at the moment but I will be able to say quite a lot more about it once the spending review is out of the way—certainly, I hope, in time for Report.
Turning to the duty to facilitate and the power to direct, noble Lords have proposed Amendments 26 and 27, which would have the effect of removing the requirement for governing bodies and local authorities to facilitate the academy conversion of schools rated inadequate by Ofsted. However, the amendments would still result in the governing body and the local authority having to facilitate conversion in other cases, such as when an academy order is made for a school that meets the coasting definition or has not complied with a warning notice.
Amendment 26 removes the requirement for governing bodies and local authorities to facilitate the conversion of inadequate schools. However, it is precisely these schools where there is a real need to intervene quickly and turn the school around without local authorities or governing bodies blocking or delaying progress. We have seen too many instances over the past five years where conversion to academy status has been delayed through long debate and delaying tactics, such as the refusal to provide important information and reluctance to take vital decisions. One example of progress being unnecessarily delayed is the case of Beechview Primary School in Buckinghamshire. The school was first judged inadequate by Ofsted in January 2013 and, despite numerous discussions with the department, the local-authority-appointed IEB consistently refused to vote in favour of becoming a sponsored academy. A further Ofsted inspection in December 2014 rated the school inadequate for a second time, and a monitoring visit in April 2015 found that the local authority had been unable to bring about the improvements needed. The department tried to restart the conversation about sponsored academy status but the IEB remained unsupportive and went on to discuss alternative options with the local authority, including amalgamation with an infant school, as a way of avoiding sponsored academy status. However, at long last, in October 2015 the IEB voted for Sir William Borlase’s Grammar School to be its sponsor. Beechview is expected to open as an academy in 2016, more than three years since it was first judged to be failing its pupils.
To address the issue of unnecessary delays, Clause 10 will ensure that where an academy order is made in respect of a school that is eligible for intervention, the governing body of that school and the local authority must take all reasonable steps to facilitate the conversion of that school into a sponsored academy. In the majority of cases, the effects of Clause 10 should ensure that governing bodies and local authorities take the necessary actions to ensure a sponsored academy solution is in place quickly. However, Clause 11, which allows the Secretary of State to direct a governing body and local authority to take specified steps to facilitate the conversion, is necessary in the event that they are not fulfilling their duties or that more specific timescales or steps need to be set. Amendment 27 seeks to remove Clause 11 in the case of inadequate schools. It is crucial that regional schools commissioners have the benefit of the duties and powers in Clauses 10 and 11 in relation to inadequate schools. These provisions are crucial if we want to be able to strengthen our ability to deal with failure and to do so more swiftly.
Before concluding, I shall finally speak to Amendments 28 and 29, which probe Clause 12 regarding the power to revoke academy orders. In particular, they probe its purpose in relation to schools rated inadequate by Ofsted where Clause 7 has been clear that an academy order must be made. I have used this debate to reiterate the clear commitment in the Government’s manifesto that failing schools will become academies and that academy orders must therefore be made whenever a school is judged inadequate by Ofsted. There will, however, be rare circumstances where an academy order needs to be revoked. Clause 12 addresses this by inserting a new Section 5D into the Academies Act 2010. This will allow the Secretary of State to revoke any academy order issued to a school which is eligible for intervention, including in a failing school where an academy order must be made.
We envisage that in the case of failing schools there might be a very small number of exceptional cases where the Secretary of State decides that academy conversion should not be pursued. A school may, for example, prove to be unviable and closure may sadly be inevitable, or it may have gone into special measures for a very specific safeguarding issue which has been rectified. There may be other examples in future and while we expect those examples to be exceptional, it would be wrong to remove the Secretary of State’s power to revoke an academy order on any inadequate school as this amendment suggests. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Will the Minister elucidate two things for me? First, I understand there is a consultation on what “coasting schools” will mean. When will that consultation be finalised, and when will we have a definition of coasting schools? Will the Bill proceed to its final stages before we have that definition? What is the state of the consultation?
Secondly, the Minister glorified, for want of a better word, the academy system. We have heard little from him about the successes of maintained schools, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, so eloquently described. Nor has he justified why a coasting school will be converted with no need for consultation. I do not understand what happens if you consult after the process; that does not seem to be consultation. A high-performing school is not required to consult. It should consult staff, parents and others who have an interest and take account of those views before entering into academy arrangements. This seems a very strange thing to do. Some people can be consulted, and some people cannot. I cannot understand why this should happen.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
In looking at the document, that is indeed what it says. The Minister, I am sure, would expect the Bill long before then. Would he not?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
If that is the case, if the Bill did not become law, what would apply with regard to “coasting” in the interim?
Lord Nash
The definition is in the regulations, not in the Bill. That is what we are talking about in the consultation.
Unlike failing schools, intervention on coasting schools will not be automatic, as I have said. Schools will be given time to demonstrate their capacity to improve sufficiently, either on their own or with assistance. There will already have been a dialogue, likely over quite a long period of time, about a school’s plans to bring about improvements and an opportunity to share views with parents and others. I think that I have finished. In view of what I have said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington
My Lords, on the definition of “coasting”, I wonder how much the Treasury Bench wishes it had got that in place before we started. We have gone round that before and will probably go round it again.
Lord Addington
I know, but that is an administrative thing. We should have something in the Bill. Much of this discussion is about why we cannot have things in the Bill. That seems to be quite a good answer but I did not find that regulation.
My amendment is about what happens when an academy is coasting. If there were a reference to it, or if we knew that it would be published, this amendment would not have gone down. I did not table the amendment because I could not think of anything else to do; there are novels I could read and other activities I could do. But I had a look at this and it seemed that academies were excluded from the state of something being wrong, such as “coasting” or underachieving. Everyone else who looked at it said, “Yes, that seems to be correct”.
I hope that on Report we will get a little more definition and guidance on when these things will come through. At the moment, we are still groping around. Some things have been published—indeed, some unfinished things have been published—so we are constantly looking. I will read the document, of which I was not aware, and I may find that it addresses the point. At the moment, though, we have the idea that some schools are bad but that does not seem to apply to half or more of the schools in the country. That is totally inequitable and removes a way of intervening to help pupils. Surely a little more time needs to be given to ensuring that we can find where the information is. We are still going through consultations and the argument on the definition of “coasting” is far from over, so we need a bit more time and effort on that.
The noble Lords on my physical right presented an interesting amendment, and I am sure that we will have a discussion about that and see what we can do about it at another stage. At the moment, though, as we are in Grand Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“School conversion: children with special educational needs and disabilities
After section 4 of the Academies Act 2000 insert—“4A School conversion: children with special educational needs and disabilities
Before entering into Academy arrangements in relation to a school which has been the subject of an Academy order under section 4(A1), the Secretary of State shall—(a) provide guidance to the person with whom the arrangements are to be entered into about collaborating with other schools to provide any necessary specialist provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, in cases where the individual school is not able to provide it;(b) require the person with whom the arrangements are to be entered into to provide details of their plans to support—(i) children with special educational needs and disabilities who have an education, health and care plan; and(ii) children with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have an education, health and care plan.””
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
This is a probing amendment and it comes from the Royal College of Speech and Language specialists, who are quite worried about the present position of special educational needs in schools.
As noble Lords will know, following the enactment of the Children and Families Bill, which we dealt with in the previous Session, there have been considerable changes in the treatment of children with special educational needs. What used to be called statements are now education, health and care plans. Approximately 2.5% of children in schools have the equivalent of a statement. Many local authorities are way behind with the issuing of education, health and care plans. Therefore, at the moment there is a mix of the two. Somewhere in the region of 15% or 17% of children have special educational needs. These are now dealt with in the school framework, and we have done away with the categories that used to be called school action and school action plus. Now, it is the responsibility of the school to identify children with special educational needs and to make provision for them.
The speech and language specialists are particularly concerned with those who have special educational needs in speech, language and communication. Something like 7% of children have such needs, and around 50% of those will come from disadvantaged homes—those who are eligible for free school meals. This is the most prevalent group of children with special educational needs in primary schools.
One can see that if children come to school not able to talk properly—in some cases, not talking at all—they cannot be taught to read. The first thing you have to do is to get children chatting away. This is what many reception classes are all about: getting the children to interact with each other and talk to each other and, from that, learning how sounds are formed and so forth.
As I said, the speech and language specialists are very concerned that children with SEN, particularly those with speech, language and communication needs, who do not have statements or EHC plans may not receive the specialist support that they need to enable them to fully engage with their education. Without that support, they are at risk of not having the best start in life and may be unable to achieve their potential, both at school and in life. The speech and language specialists are trying to get the Government’s thoughts on this.
The amendment does two things. First, it is designed to address whether schools will be encouraged and supported to collaborate where an individual school does not have the necessary level of specialist support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, including speech, language and communication needs. Secondly, it deals with how academies will provide support for those children with EHC plans and, crucially, given the vast number of children with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have EHC plans, those without them. It also addresses whether the Government will keep under review specialist provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities in schools of all types, both for children with EHC plans and for those without.
As I said, this is a fairly straightforward amendment. It requires reassurance from the Government that where in the past children have had specialist support, they will continue to get the support that is necessary. This is particularly true in primary schools, where the help of the specialists is particularly valuable to teachers, some of whom do not have the competence to cope. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark
My Lords, I am very pleased indeed that the noble Baroness has tabled this probing amendment. I have for some time been very closely involved with a charity called I CAN, which works with children with severe communication difficulties. Working with the charity, I have been made aware of how extremely specialised this treatment is. Many of these children are speechless, not because they have any physical disability but because of severe emotional difficulties, and getting them to the point where they can engage in any kind of intelligible conversation is a hugely long and difficult path.
One of the most moving experiences was when the people who work with these children in specialist units demonstrated that these children can sometimes sing when they cannot speak. About eight or nine of these children came in front of us and sang, and you could hear how rusty and unused their voices were because that is the only time they use them. I am therefore very conscious of how important it is that specialist help is available. Of course, good teachers will work hard and some of them will succeed in getting these children to speak, but the idea of making sure that through collaboration they are able to have really specialist help is very important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Addington
My Lords, it is always something of a relief when somebody from our Bench beats me to the punch on special educational needs. The idea that you need to enter into collaborative arrangements to get specialist help, especially if it is a low-frequency, high-need problem that has not got into the realms of having the label of a plan around it, is a long-term problem. It is not about just this one group. It is very good practice to bring in help and support from other schools. How this could be addressed and helped in any way is something that we should have a look at. It is a very sensible use of resources and is a good way forward. If you have a way forward, even for those at the less severe end of the scale, you should spread it around outside your own school. It is obvious that you should be doing this. I take on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has said and say to the Government: how are you going to do this? This really is very sensible. It is not doctrinaire; it is just sense.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, as one who can speak but not sing, I shall speak very briefly. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. It gives me the chance to clarify the position on the earliest entrants to school in their earliest days in school. How long does it take before support becomes available? It has been put to me that some children require this plan to be drawn up, which may take time, before the support, of whatever kind, is available. Anything that can be done to advance that will clearly be to the advantage of the child. The younger you start, the better.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, this amendment prompts a question in my mind, which the Minister might be able to write to me about. Some schools are better at catering for children with special educational needs, so they attract more of them; they get a reputation as being good at it. One would not wish those schools to be penalised because they happen to be good at working with children with special educational needs. In the metric that the Government are developing to judge progress and whether or not a school is coasting, I hope we can be assured that over the three-year period there is not a risk that we penalise a school because it is very good at working with children with special educational needs. The children may not make so much progress academically but they will have been given excellent support in other ways. I hope that makes sense.
I will say one other thing. I can see that the notion I expressed earlier about allowing children to fail, particularly children in care, is a difficult concept, which I should probably correct somewhat. What I was trying to say is: allow children to fail, fail and fail again until they are successful, and each time they fail allow them not to feel so badly about failing that they do not want to try again but allow them to keep on trying until they are successful. Obviously, ideally one wants to help them to be successful the first time round.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I apologise for speaking again here, but perhaps I may add something. I am the special educational needs governor of a primary school, and when the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was talking about the time it takes to get a statement and so forth, I was thinking about the cost of supporting children with special educational needs. As noble Lords will know, a primary school receives about £4,000 a head, and the average cost of supporting those with special educational needs is about £8,000. It can vary from £4,000 to something like £16,000 or £17,000 if there has to be an extra teaching assistant because the child is disruptive. On average it takes a couple of years to get a statement for those who are at the extreme end and it will cost about £16,000. A small primary school finds it very difficult to cope in terms of resources because budgets are so tight at the moment.
The Earl of Listowel
I suppose what flows from that is that the educational attainment of other children may not progress as fast as it might because the resources are focused on the most disadvantaged children. So, again, a primary school that is good at attracting children with special educational needs may appear to perform less well—indeed, it may actually be performing less well—academically, although it is doing a good job with children with special educational needs, because its resources are being spent on those children rather than on the wider population.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I remind the noble Earl that schools receive extra resources for those young people—especially now, with the pupil premium. However, there is an overlap between the two groups and, although we have to be careful to ensure that the pupil premium resources are not spent exclusively on those with special educational needs, there is a reason to use some of those resources for some of the activities.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Before my noble friend Lord Watson speaks, perhaps I may ask a question. This is an important amendment and it made me realise that I did not know terribly much about what academies have to do in relation to children with special educational needs and disabilities. Can the Minister tell us—if not today then in writing after the Committee—what information schools have to provide, when they are to become academies, about the arrangements that they will make for children with special educational needs and disabilities? Secondly, what statistics does the department have on the numbers of children with SEND who are currently in academies, compared with those elsewhere in the education system?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I am not sure which Minister will respond to this debate—I see it will be the noble Baroness. I am sure that she will tell us that the amendment is not necessary, but I hope she will say that that is because the two requirements in it are already in place. She is nodding—and if that is the case, it is most welcome.
The issue of special educational needs is much underestimated and is not fully appreciated by many people. Like other noble Lords, I have been in contact with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, which provided an interesting briefing with some rather worrying statistics. Two in particular stood out for me. First, one in five of all pupils has a special educational need of some sort; that represents about 1.6 million people in England. Secondly, 50% of children in areas of social deprivation have significant language delays, which of course have all sorts of other spin-off effects, not least the fact that children with vocabulary difficulties at five are significantly associated with poor literacy, mental health and employment outcomes in adult life. So it is important that schools deal with those issues as far as possible.
While the noble Baroness’s initial response is encouraging, we need to be clear whether there is any tendency—I am not aware that there is one and perhaps I could ask whether figures are available—by academies to exclude more children with special educational needs, like for like, than maintained schools. I would be concerned if that were the case. Certainly, the last part of the amendment, proposed new paragraph (b)(ii), which talks about,
“children with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have an education, health and care plan”,
is the most important because those children are most at risk. The school itself has to decide, in place of the plan that exists for other children, what it will do and how it will care for those children. I suppose it is self-evident that some schools do it better than others. This is not a division between maintained schools and academies. It is obviously more challenging to deal with children with special educational needs if there are only a few of them than if there is a significant group of them within the class and perhaps teachers can specifically be there full time to care for their needs.
With those points and the particular question about the comparison between academies and maintained schools, I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, Amendment 18, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, concerns provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities at schools which have been judged inadequate by Ofsted and will therefore become academies with the support of a sponsor. This amendment would mean that before a sponsor could take on a failing school, it would have to submit detailed plans about how it proposed to support pupils with SEN and disabilities, both those with an education, health and care plan and those without. Where there is doubt that the individual school would be able to offer specialist provision for these pupils, the Secretary of State would have to provide guidance to the sponsor about how collaboration with other schools could provide this. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that when a school has failed there will be swift, decisive action to bring about urgent transformation. We do not want this to be unnecessarily delayed.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, we have set out in the draft Schools Causing Concern guidance that the number of pupils with SEN should be one of the factors that RSCs take into account when determining the best course of action for a coasting school, so they will consider it. While I recognise the noble Earl’s concerns in this area, we believe that this amendment is unnecessary and I will set out the reasons why. I reassure noble Lords that we have a robust system in place to ensure that academies are identifying and addressing the needs of pupils with SEN and disabilities—a system that we reformed extensively only last year. All academies are subject to the same requirements and expectations as local authority-maintained schools in their provision for pupils with SEN and disabilities.
To address the concern that the noble Baroness raised on behalf of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, we are not just talking here about those students with more complex needs, who qualify for education, health and care plans. We have also strengthened requirements on schools in relation to how they support all students with SEN. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, asked about that system. It includes the requirement for schools to produce an SEN information report, which must be published on their websites. The report must describe the kinds of special educational needs for which provision is made at the school and information about the school’s policies for making provision for all pupils with SEN. The report must also describe how it involves other bodies, including health and social services bodies, local authority support services and voluntary organisations, in meeting the needs of pupils with SEN and supporting the families of those pupils.
As I have said, academies must follow the same requirements on SEN provision that apply to maintained schools. The sponsor taking responsibility for the failing school must therefore ensure that the school complies with all these requirements. This means that information about the academy’s provision for SEN and how it will collaborate with other organisations as part of that provision must be available, even without this amendment. Sponsors taking on a new school will have to give careful consideration as to how the needs of pupils with SEN at the school are met and whether they can put any additional support in place.
An example, particularly drawing on the collaboration that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned, is Dorothy Barley Junior School and Special Needs Base, which became a sponsored academy in 2013. The sponsor identified for the school, REAch2, has “inclusion” as one of its founding principles, and took care to consider the potential impact of academy conversion on SEN pupils. REAch2 committed to make provision for children with SEN through inclusion in mainstream classes and, where necessary, outside class. The trust already included a number of primary schools with specialist units providing support for children with SEN—including a specialist speech and language unit at Aerodrome Academy in Croydon, a centre for children with autism at Tidemill Academy in Lewisham and a specialist unit for children with autism and ADHD at Hillyfield Academy in Waltham Forest—so it had strong experience of delivering SEN provision and managing specialist units. We entirely agree that collaboration really helps in this area. Local authorities will of course retain responsibility for services such as education, health and care plans and for the assessment and monitoring of SEN provision once a school becomes an academy.
Academies are inclusive schools which play a full part in providing for children with SEN and disabilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, asked for some figures. Sponsored academies have a higher proportion of pupils with SEN than the average across all state-funded schools. In January 2015, 17.3% of pupils in sponsored secondary academies were identified as having some form of SEN, compared to 14.3% of pupils in all state-funded secondary schools. In relation to sponsored primary academies, 17% of pupils were identified as having some kind of SEN, compared to 14.4% of pupils in all state-funded primary schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about exclusions. I can reassure him that there is no trend suggesting that academy exclusions are more likely to be overturned. Academies and maintained schools have the same rate of reviews resulting in the independent review panel directing a school to consider reinstating a pupil.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising in her amendment the matter of collaboration. There are certainly many benefits, as I have mentioned, and many MATs already have common SEN policies across their schools or share specialist provision. We therefore do not see that it is necessary to require this in law. We believe that it is right to leave it up to the professionals to decide exactly how best to meet the needs of pupils with SEN, and where collaboration between different schools would be of benefit. It is in the best interests of children with SEN and disabilities, as it is in the best interests of all pupils, for the failure of a school to be addressed as swiftly as possible. On the basis of these reassurances and my explanation of what is already occurring, we hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I am very grateful to noble Lords for participating in this debate. I thought it was going to be just a quick debate; I am delighted to have the support that I have had around the Committee. I thank the Minister for her response, which, as I expected, was a reassurance that these procedures are already in place.
I will raise just one issue with her. Perhaps she might take this away and think about it. As she will know, with the transfer of so many schools into academies, many local authorities have run down their capabilities of coping with special educational needs and providing help. Increasingly, it is left to outside consultants to provide that help. I know that quite a number of authorities are struggling to meet the demands that are required in reviewing the education, health and care plans, and something of a backlog is building up. There is also a question of whether they have the capabilities to do the monitoring that is now written into the Act; the local authorities are required to monitor these facilities in both local authority state schools and academies. If they are to do this monitoring, it is important that they actually have the capability to do it. Perhaps the Minister and the Chief Inspector of Schools might need to think about this. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(a) parents and guardians of registered children,(b) teaching and support staff of the school,(c) the local authority,(d) the governing body of the school, and(e) any other such persons as they deem to be appropriate.”
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
This is me again. I apologise for that. To some extent, we are going over ground on this question of consultation that we have already discussed at some length. In Clause 8, proposed new Section 5 of the 2010 Act is headed, “Consultation about conversion: schools not eligible for intervention”. These are the schools that convert to academies of their own choice. New Section 5(1) spells it out on the consultation:
“Before a maintained school in England is converted into an Academy, the school’s governing body must consult such persons as they think appropriate about whether the conversion should take place”.
I believe I am right in saying that that wording comes directly from the Academies Act, and was the form of words that we eventually agreed for that Act after a lot of discussion on the issue. My amendment proposes that rather than having this rather vague wording,
“such persons as they think appropriate about whether the conversion should take place”,
we should make it more specific and talk about,
“parents and guardians of registered children … teaching and support staff of the school”
and the local authority, which we need to refer to because if a local authority school is converting voluntarily to an academy, it needs to take the local authority along with it in the discussions that it has. Since the governing body will be initiating this action, paragraph (d) of my amendment is relatively unnecessary. My amendment refers also to,
“other such persons as they deem to be appropriate”.
My amendment would effectively spell out the process of consultation in those circumstances. This very much picks up on the discussion we had last Thursday on consultation with regard to coasting schools. During that discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, who was responding for the Government, made it clear that in such circumstances the Government would certainly expect that there would be consultation with the parents. I remind the Committee what the noble Baroness said on that occasion:
“In practice, we envisage that where a school meets the coasting definition, the governing body will voluntarily inform parents. Issuing a communication to parents is already the normal approach taken by schools following the publication of exam results or Ofsted inspections. In fact, schools are not required to notify parents of Ofsted judgments but they do, and we would expect schools to adopt a similar approach in this situation. We would certainly expect governing bodies to be as open as possible with parents”.—[Official Report, 5/11/15; col. GC 415]
Indeed, one does expect them to be open with parents.
However, I take issue with whether the noble Baroness was right in saying that schools are not expected to communicate with parents about Ofsted judgments. Section 14(4)(c) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, as I read it, states that the appropriate authority, which is the governing body, shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a registered pupil at the school receives a copy of the report within such period following the receipt of the report by the authority as may be prescribed, which is five working days. I think I am right in saying that under present legislation parents do have to receive a copy of the report, and that there is therefore discussion with parents about it. I basically agreed with what the Minister said on that occasion—namely, that consulting parents and staff is the least that should be expected from a governing board that decides to pursue the conversion route. However, legislation and guidance usually spell out what is expected and there seems a very strong case for spelling it out on this occasion as well.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 20 and 22 as well as to Clause 8 stand part. We are quite happy with Amendment 19, which has been moved by the Liberal Democrats, but to some extent it misses the bigger picture. Clause 8, as the noble Baroness has just said, is the Government’s attempt to enshrine in law the fact that our public education system is to become two tier—not so much the haves and have-nots as the haves and those who have much less. On the one hand, we have the maintained sector: under-resourced, tarnished by having its every fault highlighted, it seems, and on many occasions characterised as not fit for purpose. On the other, we have the academy sector: shiny, polished and well-resourced. It is the brave new world where failure does not exist or is at least not publicised.
I have to echo a point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Hunt in response to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, but I would direct this equally at the noble Baroness, Lady Evans. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that the Bill is about academies—I get that. But, at the same time, when the Minister gives out all the good news about academies, by not mentioning the maintained sector it seems that there is virtually nothing of value or merit in it. Today was one of the rare occasions when he talked about what is good in the maintained sector. I say to the Ministers in an open spirit that it would do them and their case some good if they were to highlight the fact that parts of the maintained sector are doing very well. I have no objection to them highlighting when academies are doing well, too, but there should be a little balance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, that is what is missing: there is no balance. There is really no attempt to give credit where credit is very often due.
Section 5 of the Academies Act 2010 is quite clear. It allows for consultation to take place before a maintained school is converted into an academy, and that is the way it should be. I would argue that that is basic democracy: putting a proposal in front of people, asking “What do you think about this?”, and then listening to their considered response. I say to the Ministers: yes, that takes time, and it may not elicit the hoped-for response, but that is life, or at least it is life in a democracy. Ultimately, while the parents do not have an inalienable right to carry the day, they have an inalienable right to have their say. That is the kind of open and accessible process that we have known in this country for longer than anyone can remember. We probably take it for granted, as surely we are entitled to do. However, the Government now want to shut that down, stifling opinion and, it has to be said, not for the first time.
That wording was added to the 2010 Bill following a wall of protest, including many Conservatives, after the original draft of that Bill excluded consultation. Five years on, we have gone back to the future, but it is not a future that any of us should anticipate with anything other than trepidation because it represents this Government saying, “We’re not going to ask your opinion because even if you agree with us it will take time, and that’s a price we’re not prepared to pay”. That is not to rubbish the suggestion that one day of a child’s education lost can never be regained; of course that is the case. However, it is not appropriate to say that because of that, there can never be consultation.
I have referred on numerous occasions, both last week and today, to the Government’s authoritarian approach. The Minister has made it clear that he disagrees but the evidence is clear, and I am not talking simply about the Bill. The Bill seeks to disfranchise and keep in the dark local authorities, governing bodies and parents. Millions of parents are apparently unaware that they are about to lose any say as to the kind of school in which their children receive their education. How, in 2015, did we arrive at a place where neither democracy nor transparency has any place in a Bill in your Lordships’ House?
There are other examples of what I would call attacks on our human rights. The Trade Union Bill currently winding its way through another place is even more shocking, making strike action virtually impossible. Then there is the Housing and Planning Bill, published last month, to which I made reference earlier in response to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. That is one of the most centralising and anti-local-authority pieces of legislation that we have seen, effectively ending a local authority’s ability to secure a mix of new homes in its local area. It has been dubbed “the end of localism”, and one can understand why; it gives the Secretary of State 32 new powers, almost all of them wide open, with detail to be decided by Ministers with little public scrutiny after the Bill is through Parliament. That touches on the point that we made earlier about the definition of “coasting”. The Minister said in his response that it would be dealt with through regulation. The Delegated Powers Committee said in its report that it was unhappy with that, but it appears that the Government are going to carry on regardless.
The Housing and Planning Bill also includes the enforced sale of affordable homes, often against the charitable functions of charities, which has echoes in the Bill that we are discussing, regarding the sale of church land and property following an academy order. Another example of the Government’s heavy-handed approach came just three days ago when information emerged of their plans to restrict human rights further by telling our judges that they are not obliged to follow rulings from the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister may sigh, and I am sorry to detain him if he feels there is somewhere more important that he should be, but this is part of a pattern and I am entitled to make that argument because this Bill is not seen in isolation. The draconian measures in the Bill chime with a lot of other pieces of legislation that are going through, and if the Minister is not willing to listen to that then I would ask that he at least not listen to it in silence. It is not difficult to detect a distinct pattern here of intolerance of those who disagree with or threaten the more extreme plans of this Government, whose answer is to lash out and use all their power to silence and cow their critics. Added together, the measures undoubtedly amount to a display of authoritarianism that I believe we have a moral obligation to stand against.
The key part of the clause is the addition of subsection (2) to the existing Section 5 of the Academies Act 2010. That has the effect of saying that academies are to be taken out of consultation and placed on a higher plain where only the Government, their business friends or other supporters are permitted to tread. Everything associated with academies is to become almost a gated community, with entry denied to lesser mortals. For “lesser mortals” read “parents”, who—the Government seem to have some difficulty in coming to terms with this—have more than a passing interest in the status of their child’s school. In the eyes of this Government, though, parents are regarded as worthless, or at least their opinions are. It is a shocking indictment that this sort of proposal can come forward in a Bill and the Government expect it to be greeted with equanimity.
Amendments 19, 21 and 22 are aimed at writing academies into the whole process of intervention by including them in the process that exists under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. By amending Section 59 of that Act, Amendment 22 would specify that all the provisions on schools being eligible for intervention, and the kind of intervention that would be possible, would apply equally to academies. It would also mean that local authorities would have the same power in relation to academies as they have in relation to their own schools. It is about treating academies in the same way as maintained schools in an intervention aimed at raising standards. I say: why not? Surely the aim of improving schools is one that we and all schools share, irrespective of the categorisation.
I have referred in the past to the Secretary of State, and indeed the Minister himself, describing the reasons for not allowing consultation. I have a quotation here from a recent press release from the Secretary of State, in which she said that,
“campaigners could delay or overrule failing schools being improved by education experts by obstructing the process by which academy sponsors take over running schools”.
That, in itself, is no reason for denying everybody the opportunity to speak out. She is saying that some people may delay the process, so nobody will have the opportunity to say anything. Surely that amounts to a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Clause 8 represents what I believe to be an extraordinary departure from the normal processes of governmental decision-making. Under the clause, the Minister is empowered to make a decision without reference to—far less without making any attempt whatever to listen to—parents, pupils, teachers, governors, local authorities or anyone who might be thought to have some local knowledge of the situation on the ground relating to a school. It was suggested earlier that the regional schools commissioners would have that knowledge. Where would they get that sort of local information from? Surely they would have to go to the sort of people whom I have just mentioned, so why not involve them in the process right from the start?
There are certainly several reasons why Clause 8 should not form part of the Bill, but a powerful one is that it runs completely counter to the Government’s stated belief in devolution, or what they themselves have termed their “localism agenda”. In Committee last week, I quoted from a letter to the Minister from the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. I return to it now. Referring to the Bill augmenting the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene in matters which have previously been the responsibility of local authorities, the committee said:
“These provisions appear to be at odds with the Government’s localism agenda, which emphasises the importance of local communities running their own affairs”.
And it gets better—although perhaps that is a view exclusive to this side of the Room—because the committee even quotes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as recently as 14 May this year, saying that,
“we all know that the old model of trying to run everything in our country from the centre of London is broken”.
There is an element of left hand/right hand in that. We have already heard that the Constitution Committee was pretty unequivocal in its comments to the Minister. The members of the committee said that they would be interested in understanding the reason for this decision to shift power away from local communities. They were not alone.
We have today received from the Minister a copy of the letter that he sent to the committee in reply. It is slightly disappointing that we were given the letter only a couple of hours before the start of this Committee, given that it was dated 5 November—five days ago. The Minister’s only response to questions raised by the Constitution Committee about the localism agenda is that the Secretary of State has devolved power to regional schools commissioners to act on her behalf. I am sorry but that is not what devolution means; it means handing power to people locally—people who are elected by their peers, wherever possible—to engage in the process and act on their behalf. Simply giving regional schools commissioners a remit and saying, “Go out and do this or that on my behalf”, certainly is not devolution and it has next to nothing to do with localism. I believe that the Minister needs to revisit these issues to get a firmer grasp of what they really involve, because they are important to people at a local level. People want to be involved in decisions.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, except from my experience of trying to deal with schools that are failing. In my former constituency, I had a terrible case of failing schools on two occasions. My experience is that we have to face the fact that the time taken to put such schools right has been unbelievably long. The fact that that has been the case has put the Government into this position. Normally, I would have supported many of the arguments that have been made by the party opposite. I have lived through generations of children who have suffered because we could not take urgent action. I do not think that we should make these decisions without a real understanding of the history.
Listening to the debate, I want to say two things. First, I say to the noble Baroness that I do not think that law should set out a list of all the people who you might consult when you are consulting. It really is up to the people doing the consultation to decide who it should be. Of course it is true that people will naturally turn to a list which will not be dissimilar to that of the noble Baroness, but we have become very prescriptive about who would and would not be on the list. I can think of several other people who I would want to put on the list in particular places. For example, in the very bad situation that we were in in Felixstowe, I would want to put on the list discussion with local businesses about what they needed to give decent futures to the boys and girls in the schools that were so obviously failing. I could make a list that would be as credible as the one that the noble Baroness wants.
The trouble is that once you write a list like that, those who do not happen to be on it become kind of second-class citizens. However, I think that the noble Baroness would agree that by the time we put them, the church authorities, in circumstances in which that were appropriate for the school, and everyone else that we have talked about on the list, it would be as long as your arm. It seems to me very much better to have the formation presented by the Government. This was a good debate to have, but it would not progress our discussions to have that list.
Far more concerning are the comments made just now from the Opposition Front Bench. I listened with great care to the noble Lord as he put forward his case. I thought he was a little over the top in coming close to claiming that the Government were somehow dictating inappropriately and tying that up with almost everything else that the Government have done. Of course he does not like the Government; that is what he is there for. I have been in that position, and I know exactly what he is there for.
Let us be a little bit historically accurate. The truth is that local authorities for a very long time presided over a system where, when things went wrong, few things were done about it. We have all experienced that. I experienced it in a school in Leiston, where generations of children were disrupted because the local authority would not make the changes. That was a local authority whose political complexion I agreed with, so I am not making a party-political comment, I am making a comment about the historic facts of local authority control. It was very difficult to make serious changes. There was a curious belief that in this one aspect of life, the way things are done had to move at a very slow pace.
So it is quite understandable why the Government feel that there may well be an elongation of necessary steps. The reason that I am on the Government’s side is that, in the end, I am on the side of those children. I start with the children. Indeed, I remember having a very big argument with the secretary-general of the National Union of Teachers who had the effrontery to have over her stall at the Conservative Party conference the words, “Putting teachers first”. I said that that was not what she should be doing; she should be putting children first. The fact that she refused to accept that changed my views about the unionisation of teachers in a very direct way, and anybody who sees the annual teachers’ conferences will see the best advertisement for home schooling I have ever come across. There is a long history of this, and we have to break it. We have to break it for those children who will otherwise be trapped since so many schools are the unique opportunity that a child has. I am prepared to go a long way with the Minister, and I hope very much that we shall see this work. I am quite sure we can come back to it if it does not, but the one thing we cannot allow is a position in which children are condemned for long periods in failing schools. It is a risk worth taking.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
It is like being in Piccadilly Circus in this Room at the moment. I shall speak briefly to this group and particularly in favour of Amendment 20 which is exceptionally reasonable and rather mild. I share some of the concerns about tick-box consultation, asI did when I was a Minister. You put the list of people in, and it becomes too mechanical if you do not watch it because the essence of consulting is lost. However, I have some reservations about Amendment 19.
I understand where the Minister is coming from on this because I experienced the same thing. I have a memory of a school in Leeds where 2% of pupils got five As to Cs. I had parental demonstrations against me taking action to close it down. I also saw the most awful demonstrators every time I went to intervene in a local authority. There is a bit of me that thinks—I wonder whether the Minister could stop talking to the other Minister because it is really disconcerting; this is a Committee to discuss the Bill, not to sort out other shenanigans—that that is the nature of the job. That is democracy. We are not Russia or North Korea. The nature of the job is that sometimes you get what you think is the most unreasonable opposition and it drives you mad. You feel like you have had a bad day at the office, but you have to get up and go through it again the next day. That is the nature of being a Minister in a democratic institution.
Some of the examples that the Minister has given during the passage of the Bill about interventions, particularly those he gave in his Second Reading speech in the discussions about Pimlico Academy, would not be stopped by Amendment 20 because all it does is state that the Secretary of State must call a meeting with the parents of the children in the school to explain what she is about to do and that she must take into account what they say. It has nothing to do with the sort of disruptions I had and which the Minister referred to at Second Reading. That is life, and it has to be got on with. This is about consulting the parents.
The other thing I learnt in difficult situations of this sort is that it is easier if you take parents with you. This is massive change for a school and the parents worry. Change frightens us all, and by not explaining it to parents and asking their view, you run the risk of driving them into opposition. What are they hiding? What are they fearing? Why do they not want to hear my view? As the Minister’s view will not be there, there will be murmurs in the playground and at the school gate, which means that consultation will take place by rumour, fact and misfact. You are not going to stop parents talking about what is happening and you are not going to stop them expressing their view. They will go and get the placards and oppose an academy conversion, whereas in some cases an academy conversion might be exactly right. I ask the Minister to split off in his mind his experience, because we should not be writing legislation on the basis of one Minister’s personal experience, and that perfectly understandable annoying aggravation which is the nature of being a Minister in a democracy. Look at Amendment 20 and explain how, when you are bringing about massive change that affects a group of children and their parents, you can possibly explain to them that it is unreasonable to call a meeting, invite them to attend, explain what you are going to do, listen to what they say, and take their views into account.
Lord Nash
My Lords, the group of amendments including Amendment 19 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendments 20 and 22 proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, focus on the involvement of parents and others in decisions where schools are underperforming as well as in decisions about the conversion of schools which are performing well. I also hope to use this debate to reiterate why Clause 8 is so fundamental and should stand part of the Bill.
Why the new and strengthened intervention powers in the Bill apply only to local authority maintained schools and not to academies features again in Amendment 22. I hope that following our debates at the first Committee session and earlier today, many of which probed our approach to failing and coasting academies, noble Lords will be reassured that regional schools commissioners already take swift and effective action where an academy is not performing well.
The other main issue raised by Amendments 20 and 22 is the involvement of parents when a school is eligible for intervention and will either be required to become an academy by virtue of being a failing school, or may be subject to an academy order or other form of intervention where it is identified as coasting or has failed to comply with a warning notice. Looking first at schools which have failed and have been judged to be inadequate by Ofsted, as I have already said, we are clear in the Bill and in our manifesto that any failing school must become an academy with the support of a sponsor. It is illogical to retain consultation on whether a school should convert when our manifesto makes it so clear that that would be the outcome.
Clause 8 is also vitally important because we want transformation to take place from day one. As I said, the Bill will ensure that the academy conversion process for such schools will be as swift as possible, not delayed through debates about whether a school should become an academy or not. That is also why Clause 8 removes the requirement for consultation on whether a school should become an academy. Maura Regan, CEO of the Carmel Education Trust, a passionate woman who noble Lords heard from at last week’s event, summarises the case better than I can. She said that the difficulty with allowing a consultation or vote about whether a school should convert to academy status is that it is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. The adults’ perspective will largely always be skewed or biased. Moving swiftly to transform the school is about championing the interests of the child over and above many stakeholders not able or willing to grasp the long-term wider view. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who made similar comments last week in Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, who made similar comments in an earlier debate.
As I said at the outset, this is about putting children first. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, takes objection to the words “for too long the interests of adults have stood in the way of a child’s education in circumstances where a school is failing”, but sadly events prove that to be the case time and time again. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Deben for his very eloquent remarks. It seems that we have a fundamentally different sense of urgency on this side of the Committee compared with noble Lords on the other side. I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, but it is as simple as that.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, I cannot allow that to stand. I requested in the previous debate that we did not throw that kind of remark across. I hope that the Minister would wish to put on record that no one on this side does not have a sense of urgency. If the Minister is going to do nothing while a school is converted to an academy, then shame on him because other things can be done while a discussion, a meeting with parents, takes place. The school’s hands are not tied with regard to changing the head teacher, getting someone in to help, putting challenge in and doing other things rather than converting to an academy. He might end up disagreeing with us but I hope he will not rest on the argument that it is because we are prepared to sit on our backsides while children fail. That is not the case, and I think he knows that if he thinks about it carefully.
Lord Nash
I fully accept that on both sides of the House we want to put the interests of children first. Maybe we have a different approach to doing that. I have already described to the House that once a sponsor has been identified for a failing school, sponsors will be keen to engage with parents about their plans for the school, ensuring that parents understand what will happen next and have the opportunity to share their views on the sponsor’s approach. Widnes Academy is just such an example. The performance of the predecessor maintained school, West Bank Primary School, had declined and in May 2013 it was put into special measures by Ofsted. The Innovation Enterprise Academy, a high-performing local secondary academy, was named as the sponsor for the school, and its first action was to engage with parents, pupils and staff to seek their views about how the new academy should operate.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
But all this is after the event. He says that sponsors will be keen to engage with parents; yes, I would think they should be, but it is then too late for parents who disagreed with the decision in the first place. Why not do it the other way round?
Lord Nash
As it said in our manifesto, a school will become an academy in these circumstances.
I go back to the excellent work that the Innovation Enterprise Academy did in the case of West Bank Primary School. It had drop-in sessions at the school for parents and appointed a parent champion to the interim executive board. Parents and pupils were invited to name the new academy and design the new uniform and logo. As a result, parents were much more supportive of the school becoming an academy.
Noble Lords who attended last week’s meeting heard from Martyn Oliver, chief executive of one of our most successfully performing academy trusts, Outwood Grange. He said:
“A prospective trust does not just ride roughshod over a school and its community. Outwood Grange has a clear vision and we are passionate about engaging staff and parents on that vision. The advantage of our model is that alongside the clear vision of the trust, local governing bodies are left with more space to focus on things like engaging with the local community. Ultimately parents are happy, especially when they start to see the dramatic improvements in results for their children”.
Examples such as this show that parents will still have opportunities to have a say in the future of their children’s school if it has failed, even if there is no longer a question of whether or not a failing school should convert.
Looking at coasting schools, we debated at length last week the importance of parents being aware when their child’s school is identified as coasting so that they can then understand and challenge how the governing body and leadership team intend to improve sufficiently. As I said earlier, unlike in failing schools, intervention in coasting schools will not be automatic, and schools will be given time to demonstrate their capacity to improve sufficiently. There will therefore already have been a dialogue, likely to have taken place over a long period of time, about a school’s plans to bring about improvement and an opportunity to share views with RSCs, the community and parents before any decision for the school to become a sponsored academy is made.
As discussed, we already expect that governing bodies in schools identified as coasting would share relevant information with parents, but we have committed to consider whether there is anything further that can be included in the statutory Schools Causing Concern guidance to ensure that such engagement with parents consistently takes place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked about the circumstances in which governing bodies were obliged to notify parents. The legislation in this area is quite complex, depending on the status of the individual school. I am happy to write to her to explain that in some detail.
We feel confident that what parents want most is for their child to attend a school that is performing well. The Bill is all about ensuring that we have robust powers to challenge underperformance wherever it occurs, enabling us to tackle not just failing schools but now also coasting schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, again referred to my tendency to talk about only academies and not schools in the maintained sector. There is an excellent example of cross-academy and local authority maintained work in the Birmingham Education Partnership, which the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, chairs. Of course we recognise that there are many excellent schools in the maintained sector, but this Bill is about failing schools. We are not here to talk about excellent maintained schools.
As for the local knowledge that regional schools commissioners have, it is excellent. I look forward to introducing the noble Lord, Lord Watson, as part of his essential due diligence on this Bill, to some of the regional schools commissioners. He can discuss with them how close they are to the coal face. I hope that he will engage with them and be very impressed. As he said, a list of RSC decisions is already published on the GOV.UK website and we are making the decision-making of RHCs and HTBs more transparent. From December, a fuller note of head teacher board meetings will be published to cover all meetings from October this year, and will contain information on the particular criteria that were considered for each decision.
I turn to Amendment 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which relates to where a governing body is proposing that a school should convert to an academy voluntarily where it is a school that is performing well and is not eligible for intervention. The amendment proposes that rather than consulting whoever it deems appropriate, the governing body should specifically be required to consult certain persons, including parents and guardians, teaching and support staff at the school, the local authority and also itself.
The purpose of Clause 8 is to ensure that we have robust powers to take action in schools that are failing, coasting or otherwise underperforming. I want to ensure we remain focused on that very important issue. The Bill does not have any impact on schools that are performing well, but I will gladly address the amendment. As I have set out, that is why Clause 8 removes the requirement for the governing body to consult on whether a school should become an academy. It is crucial to remember that we are talking about removing consultation only in the most serious cases.
The amendment proposes that, rather than the governing body having the flexibility to consult such persons as they think appropriate in cases where they convert voluntarily, it should be specified that the governing body must consult certain people. This very matter was discussed in detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, when the Academies Act 2010 was a Bill under consideration by this House, where we first introduced the prospect of schools that were performing well voluntarily converting to academy status.
Where schools are performing well, we must trust professionals to do their jobs without the unnecessary interference of central government—a fundamental principle underpinning the academies programme—and therefore it is right, as my noble friend Lord Deben said, that we leave it to those professionals to decide exactly who should be consulted on the matter of whether a good school should convert to an academy. In our view, it would not be right for us to dictate an inflexible checklist in legislation, which would not in itself ensure that consultation was any more thorough or meaningful. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, it might essentially consign some people to being second-class consultees. Having said that, we have very clear guidance to prospective converters, available on GOV.UK, setting out expectations that the consultation will include staff members and parents and should also include pupils and the wider community, but anyone with an interest can share their views.
I therefore do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The process for good schools converting to academy status is working well. In practice as opposed to theory, we have had no significant challenge or any real pressure to change the current requirements. Interest in conversion remains high: since 1 September 2014 we have received over 500 applications to become a converter academy. Converter academies continue to perform well: 2015 results show that the key stage 2 results of primary converter academies open for two or more years have improved by four percentage points since opening. Secondary converter academies continue to perform well above average, with 63.3% of pupils achieving five good GCSEs in 2015, 7.2 percentage points above the state-funded average.
While we have made the case for the need for a swifter academisation process in the case of underperforming schools, the Bill does not intend to change anything about the very successful process of converting strong schools. I hope, however, that this debate has clarified just why Clause 8 is so integral to the Bill. We still believe that sponsors and governing bodies should engage with parents about plans affecting their child’s school, and of course they do, but to mandate through legislation such consultation and what form it should take would be disproportionate and would only lead to delays in schools whose performance requires quick redress. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments and to let Clause 8 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I make plain that you do not have to be a member of the Conservative Party to support the Government on this one. It is interesting that he quoted two Cross-Benchers who have spoken in comparable terms. It is rather important to take account of the history of this and what people’s experience has been. We are not dealing with the best local authorities; there are good ones, but we are dealing with the others. Lastly, for the avoidance of doubt, I raised the question about the word “must”. I have been satisfied with the Minister’s reply relating to a later clause in the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
I am sorry; I was forgetting that I was the one who originally moved this. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have to confess that my sympathies were rather more with Amendment 20 than with the amendment that I myself moved. This is clearly an issue that we are going to return to, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Barker of Battle
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness Burt of Solihull
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Retirement of a Member: Lord Chalfont
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Japanese Knotweed
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Sharples
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in preventing the spread of Japanese knotweed.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the work of local action groups, many established with Defra’s support, has reduced or eradicated Japanese knotweed in several places across England. Community protection notices, available since last year, enable local authorities to require landowners to deal with any nuisance caused by the plant. We continue to explore biocontrol options through the controlled release of a psyllid insect and expect to receive further reports of its progress in December.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I first asked this Question 26 years ago? We are certainly showing progress and I am most grateful to him for his reply.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend has certainly been tenacious and persistent in dealing with a real thug of a plant. We have had this plant since 1825, when, with good will, it arrived at horticultural gardens; 20 years later it arrived at Kew and was sent up to Edinburgh. I am afraid that we have the consequences of not understanding, as we do now with hindsight, that we should never have allowed this plant to come to these islands.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has said that certain local authorities have successfully dealt with Japanese knotweed, what is to stop other local authorities dealing with it in the same effective manner?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Lord hits on something as regards where it is seen to be a local priority. I should say that this is about local authorities in partnership with householders and landowners in a real community effort. I acknowledge that in Bristol, for instance, 95% of Japanese knotweed surveyed is under management. Cornwall County Council is a leader in tackling Japanese knotweed and is committed to controlling the spread of the plant. These are examples of how, with local action groups, we can make a real difference.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I have not been asking these questions as long as the noble Baroness because I have not been here quite as long as her, but if she has been tenacious and persistent, as the Minister says, she is unfortunately not quite as tenacious and persistent—and certainly not as aggressive—as this dreadful weed.
The Minister rightly says that the successful areas now are in local action and traditional means of getting rid of the plant, and that waiting for the famous psyllid, the insect which is going to do the trick, is simply not going to be sufficient. As the noble Lord just asked, why are the Government not making much more effort to spread the good practice, such as that in Pendle, where I live, which is doing a very good job indeed of getting rid of it?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, because it is very important that we raise awareness of this plant: awareness-raising is a key element of the strategy on invasive non-native species. There have been many initiatives, such as the Be Plant Wise and Check, Clean, Dry campaigns launched by Defra. It is very important that we all work together on this, because the examples of where it is working and we are eradicating the plant are of huge benefit to local communities.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has described welcome progress, for which the Government are to be thanked. However, how far have we got on this? The Minister mentioned individual initiatives. Where are we in terms of the national scale of the problem?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there are 74 local action groups in Great Britain. They range from the south-west to the north-west, Nottingham, Devon, Yorkshire and the Peak District. I have already mentioned Bristol and Cornwall. A Norfolk group has been very successful in saving a great special area of conservation. To answer the noble Lord, these groups are spread across the country. I hope that the success of all the local action groups will bear fruit, with others nearby thinking that this is a good thing to do as well.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, five years ago, when I was happy enough to be a Minister in Defra, the scientific community was convinced that we were about to take an initiative which could well conquer Japanese knotweed with the introduction of a psyllid which consumes it. It was regarded that that would be a national solution to a whole range of very costly problems we have with Japanese knotweed, not least the enormous cost to our rail system of seeking to keep it clear of the weed. What happened to that development, and why are the Government talking now only about local initiatives, not a national one?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I specifically raised in my first Answer the biocontrol scheme that we are progressing, and we are looking at the results. It was never intended that we would be able to eradicate it. What we were hoping was that this would reduce the invasive capacity, but we are looking at the psyllid experiments and assessing them. There has been a further release in river courses because that is an area where we think it may adapt best, but we are waiting for further results on the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
Does the Minister think that perhaps the assiduity of following this up for 26 years has had an impact? Does he advise us to do this with other departments or does he think that some of them are quite incorrigible and will never give way?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
If I may revert to plants, which is my area of responsibility, this issue is really important. In asking this Question my noble friend probably provided the catalyst for the formation of 74 local action groups. This is about people who care about their communities and want to rid themselves of what—as I have already said—is a very invasive thug of a plant that does no good to our natural habitat.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that Japanese knotweed has a kind of mythic status as an invasive species. It is all we ever really talk about, but there are many others, and he has already touched upon the fact that there are other invasive species—both plant and animal—about which we have to be concerned. Could he tell the House what is coming down the track after Japanese knotweed to which we should be paying special attention?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Baroness raises something which certainly in Defra we are considering all the time. In fact, I leave for the monthly biosecurity meeting after Question Time. We are leading Europe on many of these issues of biosecurity. There are around 1,000 species around the world that we are concerned about, and we are seeking to ensure that they do not reach our shores, be they plants or animals. We are very much on to this.
Agriculture: Basic Farm Payment
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what percentage of the basic farm payment they expect to pay to qualifying farmers by the end of the year.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as an arable and grassland farmer.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The Rural Payments Agency has been working hard and is on track to make the majority of payments in December, and the vast majority by the end of January. Our focus has always been to pay fully, accurately and as soon as possible within the payment window that runs between December and June.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that rather limited Answer. He will recognise that the majority can be 50.01%, and that is not remotely satisfactory for most farmers at a time when they are very hard pressed. The European Commission—our masters in Brussels—have graciously permitted member states to make advance payments to their farmers ahead of the basic payment scheme full payments. Could he explain to the House why Defra has not taken up this option, at a time when British farmers have their backs to the wall?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there are a few countries—and I mean a few countries—that are proposing to pay part-payments. What we wish to do is to get as many payments out in full as soon as possible. I will of course undertake to let the noble Lord know as soon as I am in a position to give further details, but the key issue is that we are in the late stages of the final processing point, which is about verification and validation. Once that is done, I will be in a much better position to talk more precisely about percentages. But we understand, and we are working to ensure that farmers get payments as soon as possible.
Lord Plumb (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interest. I am sure some people here would accept that I have been raising the question of farm prices even longer than the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, has been raising that of the horrible knotweed disease we have been talking about. Does the Minister agree that there is a major problem not just for farmers but for the banks and various financial authorities that have been serving farmers over a period of years and have been very accommodating, particularly during this difficult year, which is far worse than the year before? Therefore, it is a matter of urgency that payment which is due be made as soon as possible.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I entirely agree. That is why, for instance, the RPA is looking to make payments to dairy farmers fund payment in the first week of December. This is clearly a very difficult time for farmers. We appreciate that, which is why there are 800 people working seven days a week at the RPA to ensure we get payments out as soon as we can.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, given that our gross payment to Brussels in 2014 was some £20 billion and that our net contribution rose to £11.3 billion, is there any reason why an independent British Government would not be able to pay this money to farmers directly—and rather more efficiently?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the reputation of the Rural Payments Agency, which pays the dairy sector in all four parts of the United Kingdom but is responsible for the English basic payments, has been transformed. If you ask many farmers, they will say—as I have; I am a farmer—that their experience with the RPA now is very different from five or 10 years ago, so it has definitely been enhanced.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for referring to the way the Rural Payments Agency has turned things round. Despite its sterling work and the assurances of the Minister, there is no doubt that a number of farmers will experience delays in payments under the basic payment scheme. In light of that, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to put in place contingency plans to help those farmers who could go out of business simply because of cash-flow problems if payments do not come through on time?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is precisely the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Plumb. It is very important that the continuing good relations between banks and farmers remain as strong as possible. Clearly, one thing we need to do is give the British farming sector a much enhanced future. Indeed, that is why this week the Secretary of State has with her eight dairy businesses and 80 UK farm businesses on her visit to China. This is about a growing market. Obviously, we face a short-term problem but the prospects for British produce are very strong. However, I am very conscious of what the right reverend Prelate has said.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
What will the cuts in the RPA budget be in the coming year? Will its performance next year be better than this year?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I do not know what cuts, if any, there will be in the RPA. Obviously, these matters are way above my station. Clearly, we want to enhance this. We have had a very complicated new basic payment system—far more complex than we would have liked. That is why we want greater simplification next year, and why the Secretary of State has been in touch with Commissioner Hogan. We will continue with an online and a paper application for 2016, which I think will work best for farmers.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, what plans do the Government have to review the transfer rate from Pillar 1 of the basic farm payments to the rural development programme, as the coalition Government committed to do? That would ensure that the maximum environmental and social benefits were gained from this public money that farmers currently receive.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, £2.3 billion is allocated to Pillar 1 direct payments and £620 million to Pillar 2 rural development in 2015. I am sure that both sums will be put to good use.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a dairy farmer in receipt of payments. On the related matter of market and public support, does the Minister agree that it is provocatively dangerous for the farmer-funded Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to state that commodity prices are not market related? Do the Government have any plans to require the AHDB to monitor and audit retailers’ honesty boxes of public commodity donations to farmers as a way to get fair commodity payments to farmers—or would that be the responsibility of the Groceries Code Adjudicator?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord about some of the more technical details, but we very much welcome the fact that some supermarkets are paying a premium. It is important there is transparency, and we want that sum to go to the farmers.
Chagos Islands
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s public consultation about a potential resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory concluded on 27 October. We are now examining the results and hope to take a decision on the way ahead soon. This 12-week consultation drew views from around 1,200 Chagossians and continues the conversation with Chagossian communities as part of our review of resettlement policy, which started in 2012. That included an independent feasibility study, which concluded at the end of January 2015.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, this week is the 50th anniversary of the decision to provide a United States base in Diego Garcia, on British territory and in the Indian Ocean, which then led to the decision to deport 1,500 Chagossians, most of whom were indigenous inhabitants. As the KPMG report, commissioned by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has this year concluded that there is no reason why resettlement should not take place, will the Government make next year’s renewal of the agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom conditional on a commitment by both parties to facilitate and support resettlement of the Chagossians, thus rectifying a grave human rights injustice?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government regret the way the Chagossians were removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Government, along with successive Governments before them, have said that what happened was clearly wrong. This is why substantial compensation was rightly paid. The noble Lord mentioned the renewal of the agreement with the American military for occupation of Diego Garcia and we will, no doubt, take these matters into account.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, we are getting out of our habit here. I suggest we go to the Labour Benches first and then to the Lib Dem Benches.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when I wrote to my noble friend Lady Ashton, who was then at the European Commission, to ask whether the United Kingdom was eligible for European Union funding for resettlement, the answer was that we certainly were? Does the Minister agree that the cost of these settlements should not fall exclusively on the British taxpayer and that, apart from the European Union, the United States, international organisations and the private sector should be approached for funding and investment?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, we will consider all these factors once the consultation is finished. As I said earlier, the feasibility study concluded on schedule. As there were still uncertainties about how any resettlement could work, and potential costs, we went into the consultation system. That is also why we are examining the results of the consultation very carefully.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, will the Government publish a draft of their decision for consultation with the All-Party Group on the Chagos Islands? Will they also give both Houses an opportunity to debate the review before a final decision on resettlement is made?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I draw attention to the dedication of the all-party group on this issue over many years. Whether or not there will be an opportunity for this to be debated at some stage will depend on whether noble Lords try to get parliamentary time for it. Once the analysis is made, the Government will make an announcement. I will write to the noble Lord about whether it will be published.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will my noble friend make quite sure that whatever arrangements are made, they protect and support the remarkable new ocean reserve which is around the Chagos Islands? This is a proud part of Britain’s dealings in this area.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, refers to the marine protected area. He is quite right that this is one of the most important areas of biodiversity in that sort of environment on the planet.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Government now appear to accept that this was one of the more disgraceful episodes of our colonial history. Does the Minister also accept that the Chagossians—the victims—will find it difficult after exile in Mauritius, in the Seychelles and in Crawley to return to life on those remote islands? What is being done about the provision of jobs? Is the US, for example, prepared to offer jobs on their base in Diego Garcia to those Chagossians who choose to return?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord makes a very good point, particularly relating to the Chagossian communities in Crawley and Manchester. Of course, they are going to want a certain lifestyle if they return to those islands. I know that the KPMG report looked at the numbers that could be employed by the authorities on Diego Garcia, but I can tell the House that, until we make a final examination of the results of this consultation, nothing can be agreed.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the All-Party Group on the Chagos Islands, I ask the Minister to be more precise about the word “soon”. This is a word that has been used by successive Governments for the past eight years, to my certain knowledge. Frankly, we would like some more precision.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, somebody whispered in my ear, “Very soon”. I and other noble Lords who have been Members of this House for a very long time have used the term “soon”, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be soon.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, there have been 16 years of litigation, which has been very costly to the taxpayer and to Britain’s reputation for human rights. Will the Government undertake to abide by the forthcoming ruling of the UK Supreme Court concerning the right of abode and the marine protected area?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I cannot comment on cases going through the courts at present, but if there is any more detail I will write to the noble Baroness.
Airport Security
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are satisfied with the level of airport security at major business and tourist destinations worldwide; and if not, what steps they will take to ensure the safety of United Kingdom citizens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport and Home Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government’s first priority is the safety and security of British citizens. We keep aviation security arrangements under close review and we will act where we need to, as we have done in the case of flights from Sharm el-Sheikh. Of course, the noble Lord will appreciate that we do not comment in detail on security arrangements.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I declare my interests in security, as recorded in the register. I thank the Minister for his Answer, but in 2009 we were very concerned about security at foreign airports, and I put in hand work with the OSCT and the Department for Transport to identify all the airports at risk and what we could do to sort things out. We may be getting safer here, but there is no point to that if people are killed on their way back into the country. Can the Minister tell us whether we have that list? Have we put in hand the work to correct the problems in those airports? Are the Government fully involved with the 30 foreign groups that are coming to the transport security exhibition at the beginning of December so that they can be part of it, including, for example, the Egyptians who are coming en masse?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Lord—indeed, the whole House—that we continue to identify and work with airports across the world in not just minimising but ensuring that we seek to eradicate any security and safety risks for all passengers. Our first priority, however, is UK citizens, and we continue to work extensively in that regard; we did so even prior to this incident. On the noble Lord’s second point, of course we work with many Governments across the board, and in this case with the Egyptians. The Prime Minister, in his meeting with President Sisi last week, again indicated that Britain will offer full co-operation in whatever respect it can.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, Athens used to be the worst major airport in Europe from the point of view of security—at least, it was when I was Minister for Aviation. Is it still?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, I shall not go into specific names of airports. The appropriate response is that we are looking at security risks across the board, and it would be right and responsible to do so, to ensure, as I said, that we seek to eradicate any risk to safety. In the action that we took on Sharm el-Sheikh, the British Government’s view is clear. If we perceive that there is a risk to the safety and security of UK citizens, we will act—and we have done so.
Lord Hylton (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that better intelligence on and better control over airport workers are far more important than ever tighter checks on British travellers?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord, but I add that it is appropriate that we look at increasing security when necessary on all passengers. Underlying the points that he has raised, there is also the importance ensuring that those who carry out the screening of passengers and baggage are fully and effectively trained.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain or give us information on the specific situation at Sharm el-Sheikh Airport? Much anecdotal evidence is now emerging of long-standing security concerns there. Can the Minister explain whether the British Government have been involved at this airport previously, or whether their involvement is occurring only now?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think I have already answered the question. The British Government have been, continue to be and will in future be engaged with countries and airports across the world to ensure that we address safety concerns. The noble Baroness asked about the situation on the ground in Sharm el-Sheikh, but I am sure she has also been following the fact that the British Government, working together with airlines—I commend their actions in this respect—has already resulted in more than 7,700 UK citizens returning to the UK over the last few days. We continue to work with the Egyptian authorities on the ground and with the airlines, so that all other remaining passengers who wish to return are returned to the UK as soon as possible.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Government said last Thursday in this House:
“We have continuing arrangements with authorities across the world to review aviation security arrangements in airports regularly to ensure that they are meeting required standards”.—[Official Report, 5/11/2015; col. 1805.]
In the light of the last question, when was the last review of the airport at Sharm el-Sheikh, and did it reveal that the security arrangements met the required standards? If it did so, what confidence can we have in these reviews, in the light of the recent apparent outrage and the Government’s no doubt justified decision to suspend UK-operated flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh? Finally, will future reviews of airports across the world simply look at trying to ensure that existing security arrangements work properly, or will they look at introducing new features to enhance security?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Again, I shall not go into specific details of security arrangements, but the Government, as I am sure that the noble Lord is aware— and as the whole House is aware—continue to work on the ground with the respective sovereign authorities and airlines to ensure that we not only minimise but eradicate the risk and ensure the safety and security of all passengers. We will continue to do so.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether Her Majesty’s Government’s plans are progressing regarding possible voluntary profiling for passengers at airports.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think my noble friend is alluding to the issue of passenger profiling. Some operators—indeed, the American airlines—engage in passenger profiling. That is certainly something that has been reviewed and I am sure, in light of the recent incident, we are looking at all measures to ensure that we have the most effective procedures on the ground, wherever we are in the world, to ensure the safety and security of all passengers.
Scotland Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Liaison Committee
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee (An International Relations Committee) (HL Paper 47) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Laming)
My Lords, I have the pleasure of presenting the report of the Liaison Committee. In recent times, the proposal that the House should establish an international relations committee has received a greater degree of attention. The issue has been raised in the Chamber on a number of occasions and there have been written representations from many Members. Therefore the Liaison Committee has been considering the matter in some detail. We appreciate that there is a range of views across the House on this question. The Motion before the House invites your Lordships to agree with the Liaison Committee’s recommendation to establish an international relations committee from the start of the next Session, together with a number of safeguards relating to membership and financial discipline.
As Members will know, the House has recently established ad hoc committees to consider a particular subject matter for one Session only, with some follow-up by the Liaison Committee. This enables a wide range of colleagues to participate in committee work. However, given the conflicts and tensions in the world and the interest of this House in international affairs, several Members have pressed for your Lordships’ House to have an international relations committee. If the House agrees to the proposition, it will be important to draw on a range of experience, and therefore the report invites the groups to bear this in mind when they make membership recommendations to the Committee of Selection.
We heard concerns, too, about the likely cost of an international relations committee, particularly in relation to travel. In broad terms the average annual cost of a Select Committee is about £225,000. Our report invites the House Committee, in drawing up the House financial plan, to consider whether any additional budget required by the Committee Office for the new committee should be offset by savings in other areas. For clarification, this does not mean that other committees will be affected in the next Session.
In addition, our report recommends a full review of investigative committee activity in the Session 2017-18. This will enable a timely evaluation of whether the new committee is working well, whether the safeguards are effective and how it is interacting with the European Union External Affairs Sub-Committee—Sub-Committee C—as well as of the overall shape of Select Committee activity. Although the Liaison Committee considers committee work at the end of each Session, there has not been a comprehensive review of the committee structure of the House since the Jellicoe committee reported in 1992. Since then there has been a considerable growth in the number of committees. Twenty-five years after the Jellicoe report, the time seems right to look again at our committee structure.
There is never a perfect solution to issues such as this, but the committee agreed that it needed to make a recommendation to the House for a decision. I hope that your Lordships will agree that our recommendation, including the safeguards, strikes an appropriate balance between the views expressed to us. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, although I welcome the new committee, may I ask the noble Lord to say a little more about why we need it, in addition to the External Affairs Sub-Committee of our European Union Committee? May I also once again ask the noble Lord whether we really need seven European Union sub-committees, especially when Brussels pays so little attention—indeed, virtually no attention—to their deliberations? Would we not do much better to distribute most of the cost of our seven European sub-committees over a number of ad hoc committees, for which your Lordships are so peculiarly knowledgeable and well suited, in the national interest?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, as a Member of the Liaison Committee at the present time, I endorse the carefully chosen and wise words of the Chairman of Committees and I join him in commending this report. There is, unquestionably, wide knowledge and expertise in the field of international relations in your Lordships’ House. There is of course, too, no shortage of deep knowledge and expertise in other major topics. The Chairman of Committee’s review of all sessional Select Committees in 2017 will give the House the opportunity to consider this wider field and to reach judgments, in the light of available resources, on how best to embrace the expertise available on a variety of topics.
As a previous member of the Liaison Committee during my time as Convenor from 1999 to 2004, I remember similar and protracted pressures on the Liaison Committee then to set up a variety of committees. Voices were raised in favour of sessional committees to consider a variety of topics. In particular, I recall one of those related to the media and creative industries, and this subsequently emerged as the Communications Committee. So the Liaison Committee has in-depth experience of handling such problems. As now, there were many noble Lords with great knowledge and expertise in a variety of other topics, and the Liaison Committee had to reach difficult judgments about both the topics and the resources available for the work.
The then committee had been reluctant to endorse additional Select Committee work on two practical grounds. First, there was no additional funding nor expert staff available to support a full-scale committee. This was ultimately resolved to set up the Communications Committee. Secondly—this is an important point—the number of active Peers who were available to fill the whole range of Select and other committees had to be considered. It was much less than it is now.
Indeed, as Convenor, with fewer available Cross-Benchers than now, and with fewer as active as those who sit following selection by the House of Lords Appointments Commission, I found that it could be quite difficult to find the appropriate numbers and skills to fill the Cross-Bench membership quotas after taking account of rotational requirements. Today, there are more Cross-Benchers ever more fully engaged in the many aspects of the work of the House, and there are many more noble Lords overall from whom to draw committee membership. So I feel that those two practical issues are now properly dealt with.
As an aside, were the membership of your Lordships’ House to be significantly reduced at some future date, this could impact on the number and range of topics that could be dealt with by sessional committees. However, that is a bridge yet to be crossed. I join the Chairman of Committees in commending this report to the House.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I add to the good wishes which have already been expressed to the noble Lord for presenting the committee’s report to us. I speak as one who spent many years on Sub-Committee C dealing with foreign affairs and defence. I was chairman of that committee for a number of years and remember very well the frustrations we had in not being able to deal with crucial areas of international affairs around the world, including the issue of the Commonwealth, in which my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has been involved and enthusiastic about for many years. We were precluded from looking into the problems of the Far East, India, China and South America, and I am enormously pleased that this proposal has been put before the House today.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the Chairman of Committees referred to the Jellicoe review of some 25 years ago. I have to ask a question as an opponent. I have been an opponent as a member of the Liaison Committee, which I recently came off along with a few others. I notice that the mood in the committee seems to have changed in favour of this proposal following a lot of pressure and a successful campaign organised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, I suspect. However, if there is going to be a review again in 2017-18, why could not this proposal be deferred until that review took place? It would have taken place in the context of a redistribution of resources throughout the whole of the Select Committee structure in the House and would have led to a far more rational and reasonable discussion about what is to take place.
Baroness O’Cathain (Con)
My Lords, I rise solely to deal with the issue of ad hoc committees and the effect of the foreign affairs committee on the operation of ad hoc committees. First of all, I have to say that I totally support a foreign affairs committee in the House of Lords for the same reason as has been stated. We have so much expertise here and foreign affairs are more important now than they have been for many a year. We are in a very unstable situation worldwide and we need to draw on all the expertise that we can. Let us not forget that Members in the other place have a huge number of responsibilities, not least to their constituents. We have the luxury—I say that word—because we have time to consider, and the experience and expertise to draw on. We do that very, very well.
To get back to the ad hoc committees, the noble Lord made the point that they would suffer if a foreign affairs committee were to come in. How would that impact on the Digital Skills Committee, the Affordable Childcare Committee, or the one which I have the honour to chair, which is on the national policy for the built environment in this country? I think this is using the wrong thing in which to scupper a very good idea.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the committee, might I say that a factor of importance to us was the question of timing? It seemed to us that the fact that it was possible to have a review in the following year was critical to the overall decision. There are various factors that would have to be considered but they are better considered after the year of seeing how the committee actually works, so the timing is as good as it could be for that reason.
A further factor of importance which the noble Lord mentioned is the fact that this is being undertaken without prejudice to the existing structure of committees across the House, including the European Union Committee. No doubt that will have to be reviewed later, but that is best done after this year has passed and we have seen how this particular committee operates in practice.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, may I say how much I believe my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours was right to raise important details about resources? I hope that the future committee will indeed have some restraint on travel.
My noble friend also made points about the ad hoc committees, but his major point related to possible conflict with the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place. I had the honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in chairing that committee. I chaired it for eight years—for two Parliaments. When the noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked for my opinions at that time on a point of consistency, I said that it is a big world and as long as there is a degree of good will and working together, I fully supported the creation in this House of the committee which is now proposed. Even then, one recognised that there was an enormous pool of relevant experience in this House. There still is but that did not alter my view that, given the turbulence and importance of matters around the world, and the limited agenda of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place, it was important that this reservoir of experience should be tapped.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, asked, “Well, why not Sub-Committee C?”. I served on that committee and it does some good work, but the Procrustean distortion of that committee is this: that everything has to be viewed through the prism of the European Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, important areas—be it the Commonwealth, the Far East, or other areas that are not directly relevant to the European Union—are excluded from its remit. Yes, there will have to be a degree of co-ordination, of good will and of working together, but this is appropriate and I personally congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on what has been a long and rather successful campaign.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, in warmly supporting this proposal I suggest that an additional reason for it is that we have no formal structure for scrutinising our international obligations. We have an ample structure for scrutinising European legislation proposals—and one which is widely admired—but absolutely nothing to deal with our obligations under international treaties or proposals under them, such as international protocols. That is what this committee could provide. It is very important for Parliament to have a voice in these negotiations.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have a simple factual question. Everybody has been talking as if there is clarity about when the committee will be established and when the review will take place. That seems to be based on a false premise, unless I missed something in an announcement. The reference is that the committee will be established in the next Session and the review will be in the following Session. I do not know when the next Session is going to start. I do not know whether the Chairman of Committees can tell me that. I have a rather nervous disposition, and I remember that in the last Parliament, the one beginning 2010, the first Session—much to the opposition of many of us—lasted for two years. The Leader and the Chief Whip are present, so I would like an instant response on this question: I simply want to know when the next Session will start, because until we get clarity on that a lot of this discussion is based on a false premise.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I do not disagree with what my noble friend has said, but I have one point to make. I had the honour of following my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours as a member of this Liaison Committee. When I joined the committee, I found that there had been a very long-running battle between the enthusiasts for setting up an international relations committee and those who had reservations. Since the noble Lord, Lord Laming, took over as Convenor, he has, with tremendous skill and remarkable diplomacy, come up with a compromise which allows the setting up of the committee but puts very strong limits and controls on it. He is to be congratulated. I hope that we do not delay it and that the House passes it and endorses it unanimously.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the decision of the Liaison Committee and the Chairman. I want to disabuse the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on one point, because I understand many of his concerns. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I had nine years as chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Commons and I should explain to him something that I do not think he has quite grasped: that the focus of the FAC in the Commons is on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It scrutinises the budget, expenditure and activities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This is entirely appropriate: it is a department-focused committee.
In the world that we are living in, the international relations concerns of this nation are engaged in by almost all the departments of state and many government agencies—it goes well beyond the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. There is a need for a body that can begin to focus on these much wider international relations issues, which are now in great turbulence around the world and where the direction and purpose of this country really need as much support and analysis as we can supply. We have the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, which does an excellent job—its latest report on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is strongly recommended—but a wider view is needed, and a wider view is just the sort of thing that this Chamber can provide. This is a good move for the House of Lords, and heaven knows we need a few good moves. I strongly welcome it, and, although I appreciate the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, they are based on a false understanding of the world that we live in.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the country has been through immense change in recent decades. We have moved from being a great imperial power to one which is dependent for the survival and well-being of its people on international co-operation. We will be judged by our children and our grandchildren on our success or failure in relation to that demanding challenge. Given the experience at the disposal of this House, it seems to me inconceivable that we should go any further without establishing a committee on international affairs as a priority. A tremendous tribute is due to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for the consistent leadership he has shown on this issue.
The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to all colleagues who have taken part in this debate. I said earlier, perhaps rather inadequately, that there is never a perfect solution to issues of this kind. This debate has demonstrated that there is no perfect solution. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that I have no idea about the Session. We as a committee were charged with thinking about where we are now and to face the reality of where we are now. We have come up with a recommendation on where we are now which I hope will commend itself to the House.
I am most grateful to members of the committee who spoke in support of this recommendation. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the Convenor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, have all played a very full part in what has been a serious examination of these important matters. I hope that it will be no surprise to the House that many, if not all, of the points that have been raised this afternoon were raised in the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, made extremely strong points in respect of the fact that the EU Committee and its sub-committees serve this House, this nation and the European community extremely well. It scrutinises all the proposals that come from Europe. I have not served on any of the sub-committees but everything that I have heard indicates that those committees do their job very conscientiously, and sometimes to much greater effect than any of the other member states of the European Union. But the material that they get relates to Europe and European interests. The noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Anderson, referred to the turbulence in the world. We are now thinking about the tremendous conflicts and the very serious issues that ought to concern us all—and I know do concern us all—and which are well beyond the boundaries or the immediate interests of Europe. It is those issues that the Liaison Committee recognises are important.
Why do this now? We do it now because grave issues face the world. We have great expertise in this House but we do not want the membership of the committee —if it is approved by the House—to be made up mainly of noble Lords with known expertise that we all recognise, such as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has been mentioned. When members are put forward in the usual way, we would like consideration to be given to ensuring that we have a proper balance.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I am sorry to intervene again. Was there any discussion with the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons—I know a new chairman has just been elected? Was there any consultation with the Foreign Affairs Committee on the proposal that we are considering?
The Chairman of Committees
If the noble Lord will just give me a minute, I will get to how we make sure that the resources of both Houses are used to the greatest effect. In fact, I will deal with it now. We have experience in this House of committees with similar interests working closely with the other end. We have extremely good experience of the two ends of the building working together on science and technology.
One of the reasons why we think it would be helpful to establish a committee of this kind, at this stage, is that—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said—when it comes to a major review later on, as I indicated, we would have experience of how it works, not just with the EU sub-committee but how it works with the other end and also with regard to the safeguards we are putting in place. As a direct answer, I have not spoken to the chairman at the other end, but I am very happy to do so. But I imagine that what is much more important is that, whoever becomes the chairman of such a committee, I confidently predict that the chairman of a committee of this House will make it his or her business to have close liaison with the chairman at the other end.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord, Lord Laming, if he can give an assurance that if the parliamentary timetable should change—because I note we did not get an answer to the question from my noble friend Lord Grocott—this proposal would come back for reconsideration in the light of changed circumstances?
The Chairman of Committees
I hope that the House will agree today to do several things. One is to agree that this House will appoint an international relations committee. Secondly, that this House will undertake—in the time I made reference to; and it is in the report—a thorough review of all committees. We will do that, if the House approves, in a timely way and will go on carrying out our business. I do not think there is any impediment to us doing that.
With regard to some of the other points that were made, it has been said that it would have a bad effect upon ad hoc committees. Actually, with regard to an international relations committee, in the light of what is happening in the world today—and there are grave matters—I do not think that anyone would not want an ad hoc committee to look at the Arctic or women in situations of conflict. We can continue to do these things. The choices of topics for ad hoc committees are made in this House, and they can be influenced by whatever the concerns and interests of the House may be.
I am not very good at all this, but I am doing my best. If I have missed somebody out or some really serious point, please take me to task afterwards. However, I commend the report to the House.
Europe: Renegotiation
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat a Statement made earlier today in the House of Commons.
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a Statement on the Government’s EU renegotiation. As the House knows, this Government were elected with a mandate to renegotiate the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, ahead of an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. Since July, technical talks have taken place in Brussels to inform our analysis of the legal options for reform. The Prime Minister has today written to the President of the European Council to set out the changes we want to see. A Written Ministerial Statement with a copy of this letter was laid before the House earlier today. I would like to offer the House further detail.
The Prime Minister’s speech at Bloomberg three years ago set out a vision for the future of the European Union. Three years on, the central argument then remains more persuasive than ever. The European Union needs to change, and others have increasingly recognised this. Only two weeks ago, Chancellor Merkel said that British concerns were German concerns as well. The purpose of the Prime Minister’s letter is not to describe the precise means, including the detailed legal amendments, for bringing our reforms into effect. That is a matter for the negotiation itself. What matters to us is finding solutions. This agreement must be legally binding and irreversible—and, where necessary, have force in the treaties.
I will outline the four main areas where we seek reform. The first is economic governance. Measures which eurozone countries need to take to secure the long-term future of their currency will affect all members of the EU. These are real concerns, demonstrated by the proposal we saw off this summer to bail out Greece using contributions which also came from non-euro members. As the Prime Minister and Chancellor have set out, a number of principles should underpin any long-term solution on this, as well as a safeguard mechanism to ensure that these principles are respected and enforced.
These principles should include recognition that: the European Union has more than one currency; there should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of currency; taxpayers in non-euro countries should never be financially liable for supporting eurozone members; any changes the eurozone needs to make, such as creation of a banking union, must never be compulsory for non-euro countries; financial stability and supervision should be a key area of competence for national institutions such as the Bank of England for non-euro members, just as financial stability and supervision have become a key area of competence for eurozone institutions such as the ECB; and any issues that affect all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states.
I turn to Europe’s competitiveness. We welcome the European Commission’s focus on this. Legislative proposals have been cut by 80% and more proposals taken off the table this year than ever before. Progress has been made towards a single digital market, a capital markets union and in last month’s new trade strategy. But we must go further. The burden from existing regulation remains too high. Just as we secured the first ever real-terms cut in the EU budget, so we should set a target to cut the total burden on business. This should be part of one clear commitment, bringing together all the various proposals, promises and agreements on competitiveness.
I turn now to sovereignty. As the Prime Minister said at Bloomberg, and we have stressed many times since, in the United Kingdom and in many other member states, too many people feel that the European Union is something that is done to them. In his letter, the Prime Minister makes three proposals to address this. First, we want to end the United Kingdom’s obligation to work towards an ‘ever closer union’ as set out in the treaties. For many British people, this simply reinforces the sense of being dragged against our will towards a political union. Secondly, we want to enable national parliaments to work together to block unwanted European legislation, building on the arrangements already in the treaties. Thirdly, we want to see the European Union’s commitments to subsidiarity fully implemented, with clear proposals to achieve that. We believe that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster. As the Dutch have said, the ambition should be,
‘Europe where necessary, national where possible’.
I turn now to an issue of great concern for the British people: immigration. As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech last November, we believe in an open economy which includes the principle of free movement to work. I am proud that people from every country can find their community in the United Kingdom. But the issue is one of scale and speed. The pressure which the current level of inward migration puts on our public services is simply too great, and has a profound effect on those member states whose most highly qualified citizens have departed.
The Prime Minister’s letter sets out again our proposals to address this. We need to ensure that when new countries are admitted to the European Union, free movement will not apply until their economies have converged much more closely with those of existing member states. We need to crack down on all abuse of free movement. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans and stronger powers to deport criminals, stop them coming back and prevent them entering in the first place. It includes dealing with the situation whereby it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than for a British citizen to do the same. We must also reduce the pull factor drawing migrants to the United Kingdom to take low-skilled jobs, expecting their salary to be subsidised by the state from day one.
We propose that people coming to Britain should live here and contribute for four years before qualifying for in-work benefits or social housing, and that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas. The Government are open to different ways of dealing with these issues, but we need to secure arrangements that deliver on these commitments.
Let me say something about the next steps. There will now be a process of formal negotiation with the European institutions and all European partners, leading to substantive discussion at the December European Council. The Prime Minister’s aim is to conclude an agreement at the earliest opportunity, but the priority is to ensure that the substance is right. It is progress in this renegotiation that will determine the timing of the referendum itself.
The Government fully recognise the close interest from this House. We cannot provide a running commentary, but we will continue to engage fully with the wide range of parliamentary inquiries—currently 12 across both Houses—into the renegotiation. Documents will be submitted for scrutiny in line with normal practices. The Foreign Secretary, I and other Ministers will continue to appear regularly before Select Committees, and the referendum Bill will return to this House before long.
The Prime Minister has said that, should his concerns fall on deaf ears, he rules nothing out, but that he also believes that meaningful reform in these areas would benefit our economic and national security, provide a fresh settlement for the UK’s membership of the European Union, and offer a basis on which to campaign to keep the United Kingdom as a member of a reformed EU. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on the Government’s EU renegotiation. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister did not come to Parliament to report on the negotiations and that he made his speech in front of an external organisation.
The Prime Minister was right to say this morning that the decision on whether the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union is the biggest decision this country will take for a generation. That is one of the reasons why we will be pushing for 16 and 17 year-olds to be given a vote in the referendum when the EU referendum Bill comes before this House next week.
We want to see Britain playing a full role in shaping a better Europe that offers jobs and hope to its young people, a Europe that stands together to face urgent security problems and a Europe that uses its collective strength in trade with the rest of the world. At last, we have heard, following repeated requests—not just from people in the United Kingdom, but from leaders throughout the European Union—what the Government are looking for in their renegotiation. I am sure that, for some on the government Benches, there will never be enough to satisfy them in their desire to leave the largest single market in the world. They will want to leave the EU irrespective of the costs to the people of this nation. They are willing the Prime Minister to fail and their only role will be to push the demands that they know cannot be met.
The agenda published today raises important issues, including some that were raised in Labour’s election manifesto earlier this year. It is interesting to note that there is very little in the Prime Minister’s request list about jobs and growth. It seems to us that one of the issues that Europe has been struggling with has been low growth and high unemployment. There does not seem to be anything in his letter to President Tusk—apart from his aim to reduce the regulatory burden, which is already under way—that addresses this issue. Will the Minister explain why this is the case?
Many workers throughout the land will be relieved to see that there is no attempt to water down the hard-won employment rights that have been agreed at the European level over the years. It will be useful to know whether the Minister thinks that there will be a need for a special EU summit meeting to agree the outcome of the renegotiation or whether it will be tagged on to a prescheduled Council meeting. If so, can the Minister confirm whether the earliest possible date for an agreement is the March Council meeting, which would make it almost impossible to hold the referendum in June next year? Does the Minister agree that while Europe is trying to cope with the largest refugee crisis that it has seen since the Second World War, the British negotiation will not be top of the in-tray of most leaders in EU member states?
I always find the Prime Minister’s talk of the need for sovereignty to be quite interesting. He is willing to flog our railways off to European nationalised companies, sell our water companies off to unaccountable hedge funds and allow the Chinese to run our nuclear power stations. Does the Minister find the double standards on the issue of sovereignty as startling as I do? Can the Minister also outline whether he thinks it would be fair and necessary for those who advocate withdrawal from the EU to set out clearly what the alternative relationship with our EU partners will look like? Can he address, specifically, the likely impact on jobs, trade, investment, employment rights, agriculture and the environment, to name just a few? Finally, can the Minister give an assurance that the Foreign Office will receive substantial protection in the forthcoming budget round and will have the staff resources necessary to navigate this difficult renegotiation?
We believe that the EU does need reform and must offer its people more hope for the future, but we believe that that is best achieved by Britain playing a leading role in the future of the EU. Our history is not the same as that of many other member states, and perhaps we never look at these issues through precisely the same eyes. However, noble Lords should be clear that Labour will be campaigning to remain in the EU and will argue for a Britain engaged with the world and using its power and influence to the maximum—not walking away from a partnership we have built over a period of 40 years.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I welcome the Statement. I also had the good fortune—I think—to have been at the speech this morning. Having also read the letter, I feel as if I have read and seen the same thing three times, so at least there is consistency in the letter that, finally, we have seen. Members of your Lordships’ House called at Second Reading of the European Union Referendum Bill to see the letter at the same time that it was sent to President Tusk, so that is clearly very welcome.
There is probably nothing terribly surprising in the letter. When I was in Brussels at the end of September, people were saying, “Where is the letter? What does the Prime Minister want?”. Fellow leaders and members of the permanent representations in Brussels were told, “Look at the Bloomberg speech; look at the Conservative Party manifesto”. The Prime Minister was certainly very keen this morning to keep sending us back to his Bloomberg speech, as many of the issues that he raised in January 2013 have reappeared in the letter. Many of them appear to be very sensible: non-discrimination against non-eurozone countries is something that everyone in this country can welcome. The idea that the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom generally accept that there should not be a unilateral request for changes for the UK but that whatever we negotiate should benefit the European Union as a whole is clearly welcome. Several of the areas covered seem to be straightforward, and Liberal Democrats would not object to the requests or the issues for negotiation in terms of economic governance or competitiveness. Indeed, competitiveness and the digital single market are areas where we are already seeing progress on reform, even before we get to more formal renegotiation.
On the sovereignty side of things, although some of us might still quite like to be committed to ever-closer union, we recognise that the issue is totemic for some. However, for some of the Eurosceptics in another place, that already seems to be a bit of a problem in that they seem to think it does not really matter. One omission seems to be proportionality. There is a reference to subsidiarity, but can the Minister say whether the Government will also look at the issue of proportionality, which links with wider questions about the role of national parliaments?
Finally, there are questions on immigration and fairness of the system. Nobody favours abuse of the system, but can the noble Earl tell us what sort of abuses the Government seek to rectify? Can he clarify how the Government propose to address ECJ judgments that have widened the scope of free movement? I understand that he cannot get into the technicalities of negotiation, but from listening to the Prime Minister this morning and hearing the Statement, it is not wholly clear what is meant there.
I, along with other Liberal Democrats, very much look forward to campaigning with the Prime Minister to keep Britain in the European Union—which, if this renegotiation is satisfactory, I believe that he will be doing, and I hope that the noble Earl will be joining us.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their response to the Statement. I was pleased to hear a lot of agreement over the broad thrust of much of what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said how important this was and that it was a really big decision, and she is quite right. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, agreed with her. We want Britain to play a full role in it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned jobs. We have continued to improve employment in this country, with wages rising as well. We want to ensure that that continues, and part of that will be productivity, which is one area where we may need further work to be done. That is all part of our planned EU reforms to ensure that our growth improves and that unemployment remains very low. As noble Lords will be aware, we have the greatest growth in the G7 and the best unemployment figures in the EU.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the FCO budget and the CSR. There are another couple of weeks before that will be announced, but I understand that there is also a Question on the subject the week after next. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned proportionality and the ECJ. For any greater detail on that, I will have to write to her.
The Prime Minister is focused on this renegotiation and reforming the UK’s relationship with the European Union. He is confident that, with good will and understanding, he can and will succeed in negotiating to reform the European Union and Britain’s relationship with it. As he has said, if he succeeds, he will campaign to keep the UK in a reformed European Union—as will I—but, if he does not achieve these changes, he rules nothing out.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, the Statement we have heard runs the full gamut from the inadequate through the vague to the completely meaningless. I ask my noble friend two quick questions of elucidation. Under economic governance, the Statement concludes that any issues that affect all member states must be discussed and decided by all member states. Does it mean that legislation in this area must be agreed by all member states? If not, what on earth does it mean?
Secondly, under sovereignty, the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk states that he would seek a formal, legally binding and irreversible way to exempt the United Kingdom from the commitment to ever-closer union. But since the rest of the European Union is committed to ever-closer union, and since the European Union will continue to legislate to this end, what on earth does that achieve?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend raised two questions, and in the second he talked about ever-closer union. As he is aware, we want to halt this constant flow of powers to Brussels and part of that includes ensuring a stronger role for national parliaments. The concept of ever-closer union may be what some others want but it is not for us. We also need to ensure that subsidiarity is properly implemented.
The noble Lord also mentioned the legally binding nature of any renegotiations. We have on the table at present a substantial package of changes, including treaty change, which needs to be agreed before there is a British referendum. This is exactly what has happened in other countries and on other occasions. Agreement on the package must happen before the referendum, but we would never have got all 27 other parliaments to pass treaty change before the referendum. That is not in any way strange; it is how it is usually done, as in the case of the Croatian accession treaty and the ESM treaty. What matters is getting the substantial agreement. It will be difficult to get but it is not impossible. Indeed, it is eminently resolvable.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
Will the Minister cast his mind back to the Statement made by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office following the last European Council meeting? She outlined four main principles. What additional information are we given in this letter, compared with that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in the Statement following the last European Council meeting? We were told that there would be substantial detail, yet as we get the Statement the covering letter says very clearly that,
“this letter is not to describe the precise means, or detailed legal proposals, for bringing the reforms we seek into effect”.
What is it supposed to do if it is not supposed to do that? We were promised by the Minister of State that we would get much more significant detail by the time we got the letter addressed to the President of the European Council. Can he tell us where—in either the Statement or the letter—that additional detail is?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord asks for more detail. As he obviously recognises, while renegotiation is still taking place we cannot give a running commentary on this issue. There are four objectives, which my noble friend mentioned briefly in the initial Statement, and more information has been given in the speech and letter by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. One is to protect the single market for Britain and others outside the eurozone in the form of a set of binding principles that guarantee fairness between the euro countries and non-euro countries. The second is to write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union, including cutting the total burden on business. The third is to exempt Britain from ever-closer union and bolster national parliaments through legally binding and irreversible changes. Then the fourth is to tackle abuses of the right to free movement and to enable us to control migration from the EU. As soon as more information is available, and at a suitable moment, the House will no doubt be informed.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords I welcome the Statement and the letter to Mr Donald Tusk. I trust the contents will benefit all member states and the Union as a whole. My wish is that it should help this country to vote yes. As regards the applicant members in south-east Europe, I suggest that the brake on free movement will accelerate their entry into the EU, which is so desirable. As regards refugees and migrants now posing a great challenge to the EU, can the noble Earl confirm that negotiations on our future relationship will not prejudice effective and humane action to handle the challenge more effectively than up to now?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned primarily migration and the problem hitting the whole of Europe at the moment. I see no reason why we would stop our continuing work, and particularly our DfID budget, helping those migrants—preferably upstream, where we can stop them moving towards Europe in the first place.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Smith said, none of us wants any abuse of free movement and benefits. Will the noble Earl confirm that the statistic much cited today, that 40% of EU migrants claim benefits, largely means tax credits and possibly child tax credits? We are not talking about scroungers on the dole but working EU migrants. That is what this is meant to be about. Could the noble Earl kindly explain a little more on this? The Prime Minister still talks about a four-year wait but there are hints that other solutions could be possible. For instance, does the Prime Minister mean codifying the very helpful recent judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union? Could the noble Earl signpost us to an alternative to a frankly unachievable objective?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned the detail of my right honourable friend’s speech earlier today. He said:
“We now know that, at any one time, around 40% of all recent European Economic Area migrants are supported by the UK benefits system … with each family claiming on average around £6,000 a year of in-work benefits alone”.
On the noble Baroness’s other point, relating to the four-year restriction, I will read out the whole paragraph I have here, if the House allows. It says:
“Our objective is to better control migration from within the EU. There are obviously different ways in which we could achieve that. We … can do that by reducing the incentives offered by our welfare system”.
That is why we set out the proposal that you must contribute before you can claim. We understand that others across the European Union also have concerns about this. That is why we say to them: “Put forward alternative proposals that deliver the same results”. We are open to different ways of dealing with this issue, as long as we do just that and agree new measures that will reduce the numbers coming here.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the disappointments of the last 10 or 15 years has been the way the principle of subsidiarity, which was supposed to ensure that nothing was done centrally that could be properly done by member states, has been undermined by a bureaucratic process known as the yellow card system? It is most encouraging to hear that the Prime Minister intends to try to revive this principle and bring it back to what it was supposed to do. I suggest that that could be done without bringing about a treaty change. It is perfectly possible for the Commission itself to extend autonomously the period of eight weeks, which is all that national parliaments are given at the moment to consider new proposals. It is also perfectly possible for it not just to extend the time but to say that it will regard the yellow card as a red card. If those two things could be achieved, it would really enhance the role of national parliaments in the legislative process.
Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness on proportionality, I think it is now the case that qualified majority voting is population-related. Therefore, to a large extent, proportionality has already been introduced into the system.
The Earl of Courtown
My noble friend, with his great knowledge of this subject, explained something to me there, for which I am most grateful. If I need to write to him, I will.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the noble Earl assure the House that, if all four objectives are fully achieved in the negotiations, Ministers across all government departments will support a vote to stay in the European Union?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, with his great parliamentary skills, asked whether, if my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is successful in all his negotiations, all Ministers will support that. I am sure they will.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I welcome the Statement and particularly the conciliatory tone of the Prime Minister’s letter. I, too, will probe the noble Earl a little about exactly what is meant by “closer union” in the phrase,
“we want to end the United Kingdom’s obligation to work towards an ‘ever closer union’”.
In his letter, the Prime Minister sets out various ways in which closer union is clearly desirable, for example steps towards a single digital market and a capital markets union. Everyone, particularly the Government, agrees that we want much more unity in our policy on immigration and refugees. I hope the Government also agree that we want a much greater coming to one mind on defence and foreign policy. If we want to work closer and closer together on all these aspects of major policy, what exactly is being rejected in this phrase?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord is quite right. There are many issues that have been an advantage, but we still want to halt the constant flow of powers to Brussels, including by ensuring a stronger role for national Parliaments, dealing with the concept which the noble and right reverend Lord mentioned. It is interesting that, in late October, Frans Timmermans, the First Vice-President of the European Commission, said, on BBC Radio 4:
“If I understand correctly, what the British Government want is to say: ‘We don’t want this, others might want this and it’s up to them, but we don’t want to be forced into an ever-closer union in the sense of more and more integration’. I would say to that: ‘Fair enough, there’s nobody who will tell you that you are forced into integration with other European countries’”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. Let us go to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and then to my noble friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I speak as a former commissioner in Europe. This debate is outrageous. We ought to be discussing not how we are going to withdraw from Europe but how we can play a part in ensuring that our voice is heard. At the moment, it is not, because the Prime Minister is being ambiguous—we do not know where he stands. He will not say whether he is for or against. What is vital is how we make our views heard, not how we can withdraw. We should not have this attenuated debate, but a real one about the all-important issues. At the moment, that is being denied to Parliament, and that is wrong.
The Earl of Courtown
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that this is an outrageous debate. As I said earlier, the Prime Minister is focusing on renegotiation. I understand how the noble Lord, with all his experience, probably wants to get more involved in the actual negotiation. However, the fact is that the negotiation in Europe is going on. We shall see if anything can be reported at the next Council meeting.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the distinct tone of widening the focus of this issue on to the reform of the European Union as a whole, to bring it up to date, as outlined originally three years ago in the Bloomberg speech, and developed considerably since then, is very welcome indeed? The media trick is going to be to polarise and build this up as a Punch and Judy show, with deals achieved or not. That is natural, and I suspect there will be one or two political manoeuvres of the same kind. The more we can show that we are concerned with bringing the EU model into the 21st century, the better. That is bound to require treaty change in due course, for the simple reason that the treaties, right up to Lisbon, are obsolete and out of date. They were designed in the pre-digital era and do not fit what is actually happening in Europe. The more we can do that, the better the transition—there is going to be a great transition—will be for ourselves and the whole of Europe.
The Earl of Courtown
I could not agree more with my noble friend. With regard to dragging the EU model into the 21st century, he is quite right. Many of these treaties are obsolete and, as he said, they were pre-digital. Life has gone on.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
Can the Minister clear up this small confusion? The Prime Minster today said that if Europe did not listen to his demands he would rule nothing out. He also said, however, that,
“our membership of the EU does matter for our national security and for the security of our allies”.
Does that mean that if the Prime Minister is unsuccessful in getting Europe to listen to his demands and to respond constructively, he is prepared to recommend leaving, although leaving is against our national security?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I am not exactly sure which part of his speech the noble Lord is referring to.
The Earl of Courtown
Of course, my Lords, the security of this country is paramount, as we show in many different ways. I will have to look at that particular part, and I will write to the noble Lord if I can add anything.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I ask the Minister how seriously the Prime Minister takes his belief, according to the Statement, that if powers do not need to reside in Brussels, they should be returned to Westminster? Does the Minister think the Prime Minister understands that this requires the breaking of the acquis communautaire, the one-way ratchet to complete union? Surely that will require unanimity. It will require treaty change. I suppose the real question is that if the others do not agree this revolutionary concept in the project of European integration, does that mean that the Prime Minister will campaign to leave?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned treaty change, and of course it will eventually have to be made in various areas. As for the first part of the noble Lord’s question, I will write to him.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in these negotiations, will the Government be sure to look after the interests of the 2 million British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union? As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, reminds us so frequently, people like him who are residents of other EU countries would be adversely affected if we were to leave, and we would naturally wish the interests of the noble Lord and others to be fully protected in these negotiations.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, this has also been debated during the course of the European Union Referendum Bill. The noble Lord is quite right, of course—the interests of 2 million citizens have to be protected.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, all three Front Benches have told us that this is a momentous decision of huge, crucial, national importance. I can only say as kindly as I can muster the words that neither the debate nor the performance of the Government so far has in any way matched up to this rhetoric. The Prime Minister did not want a referendum, but he was forced into having one. He did not know what he wanted to negotiate. We did not know what he wanted to negotiate. Our European partners did not know what he wanted to negotiate. The only thing we know for certain, and I am sure the Minister can confirm this, is that whatever he does negotiate will result in his returning to Downing Street saying that it has been a triumph, and he will then recommend a yes vote.
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord, of course, is very welcome to his opinion on this. I do not agree with him. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is focused on renegotiating and reforming the UK’s relationship with the EU. As he has said, if he succeeds he will campaign to keep the UK in a reformed European Union, but if he does not achieve these changes he rules nothing out.
National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Altmann) (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill before us today. The Bill implements the Government’s manifesto commitment that pledged not to increase the main rate of 12% and the additional rate of 2% for employees’ class 1 national insurance contributions, and the employer rate of 13.8%. The Bill also places a ceiling on the employee upper earnings limit. This is part of a wider package of measures designed to provide businesses with the certainty that they need to invest with confidence, and also to help deliver the low and competitive rates of taxation to underpin our growing economy.
Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s strong record of significantly reducing the burden of national insurance. At Budget 2011, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £21 a week above inflation increase in the employers’ national insurance contributions threshold; in 2014, the Government introduced the employment allowance to support businesses and charities across the UK, reducing the national insurance bills of over 1 million employers by up to £2,000 a year. The employment allowance allows employers to deduct up to £2,000 a year from the total of employer national insurance contributions that would otherwise be due to be paid to HMRC. Around 450,000 businesses and charities will not have to pay any employer national insurance contributions at all.
The Government are now going further. Noble Lords will recall that, as part of the summer Budget, the Chancellor announced that the employment allowance would be increased to £3,000 from next April. From April of this year, the vast majority of employers with workers under the age of 21 were lifted out of employer national insurance contributions. This move has supported over 1.5 million jobs for young people. Noble Lords may be aware that in a further move to support young people in employment, from April of next year the Government will abolish employer national insurance contributions for all apprentices under the age of 25. It is through these reforms that the Government are improving skills, increasing employment and delivering on their long-term economic plan.
I turn to the contents of this Bill. Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s election commitment not to increase the main rates of income tax, value added tax or national insurance. The Finance Bill contained legislation to deliver that commitment for income tax and value added tax; this Bill delivers on the commitment for national insurance contributions. First, the Bill sets a ceiling on the rates of class 1 national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers. Secondly, it enshrines in law the existing convention that the level of the upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions will not exceed the level of the higher rate threshold for income tax. Both the ceiling on the rates of class 1 national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers and the ceiling on the upper earnings limit come into force on Royal Assent of this Bill, and will apply until the start of the first tax year following the next general election.
The Bill provides much-needed certainty for employers and employees that a ceiling is being placed on the main and additional class 1 national insurance contributions primary percentage paid by employees at a rate of 12% and 2% respectively; sets a ceiling on the employer class 1 national insurance contributions secondary percentage rate of 13.8%; and ensures that the upper earnings limit will not exceed the higher rate threshold for income tax. Furthermore, it is possible to increase the main rate of employee national insurance contributions and employer national insurance contributions by 0.25% each tax year through secondary legislation. So this legislation helps to make it clear that this will not happen. This means that businesses can make investment decisions, confident in the knowledge that this Government will not change the ceilings on the employee and employer national insurance contribution rates for the duration of this Parliament.
In summary, the Government have already taken action to reduce significantly the burden of national insurance contributions on most employers across the UK. The Bill supplements that work. It demonstrates the Government’s overarching commitment to provide certainty on tax rates for the duration of this Parliament. In doing so, it delivers on the Conservative manifesto pledge to maintain low and competitive rates of taxation by preventing the main and additional rates of national insurance contributions paid by employees and employers from being increased above their current levels. This is an important Bill and I commend it to the House.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall be very brief, because the debate on this Bill flows, in effect, into the Finance Bill debate which will follow shortly on its heels. My party is pleased that there will be an increase in the national insurance employment allowance —a policy we fought hard for, and eventually achieved. It will now go up to £3,000; that is welcome news. We are also pleased that national insurance contributions applicable to young apprentices will be removed.
We have no problem with the Government’s policy that in the next Parliament they do not intend to increase national insurance contributions. What, frankly, we find silly, is the requirement that that be put into legislation. Surely a Government can control themselves well enough to enforce their own policy without putting up a legislative hurdle.
I shall speak more extensively on the Finance Bill, but I have to say now that the translation into legislation is far less serious with national insurance contributions, because they are rarely the tool that needs to be used in a crisis to cope with the unexpected and deal with events that can turn unfortunate for the economy. When we debate the Finance Bill we shall be talking about the related charter for fiscal responsibility, whereby the Government are putting handcuffs on themselves to make themselves impotent in the face of an oncoming crisis. That is one of the silliest and most arrogant measures that I have seen a Government introduce recently. However, there is very little concern about the Bill before us and its contents.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and I look forward to working with her on what I believe is the first piece of legislation she has taken the lead on since entering your Lordships’ House. As the Minister has just outlined, the Bill will implement the Conservative manifesto commitment to cap the main rates of national insurance contributions at their current levels for the duration of this Parliament.
This is one-third of the so called triple lock—a promise not to raise VAT, income tax or national insurance contributions which the Conservatives gave during the election campaign. The Bill provides for the NICs element of that pledge. Such a measure has to remain separate from the Finance Bill, on which the VAT and income tax locks will be debated, because statutory provisions regarding NICs cannot be included in the annual Finance Bill.
Let me start by saying that we wholeheartedly support the principle of not raising taxes for working people, so we are not opposing the Bill. Indeed, Labour was the first to commit to not increasing national insurance contributions. However, we do question the necessity of implementing that commitment in primary legislation, and are concerned that this, when taken as part of the triple lock, could present a significant challenge for the Government if the economic outlook changes.
Clause 1 will prevent class 1 national insurance contributions payable by employees at the main primary percentage from exceeding 12%, and for earnings above £815 a week, cap the additional primary percentage at 2%. This was a Conservative and Labour commitment at the election. As we progress to Committee, we would appreciate it if the Minister updated the House about the investigation being undertaken by the Office of Tax Simplification into national insurance contributions and their alignment with income tax.
Clause 2 freezes the rate of employer national insurance contributions by setting the maximum secondary percentage payable by employers at 13.8%. By doing this it also fixes the class 1A and 1B contributions. The Chancellor's spending plans are predicated on a forecast rise in revenue yield from NICs, so he has placed a great deal of confidence in economic forecasting. I am sure that during consideration of the Bill, we will debate what contingencies are in place if these forecasts are wrong and the potential impact that could have on public services. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Clause 3 links the upper earnings limit to the highest rate of income tax threshold by setting out that it should not exceed the weekly equivalent of the proposed higher-rate threshold for that tax year. In practice, this means employees stop paying national insurance contributions at the 12% rate when their income reaches the higher income rate tax threshold for that tax year.
What is particularly interesting about these three short clauses, beyond their technical detail, is the manner in which they have been introduced, which is so telling of this Government and their approach to policy-making. They argued during the passage of the Bill in the other place that the legislation is required to ensure that the market has confidence in the Government to keep their election promises. Can the Minister tell us why the Chancellor thinks the electorate and business will not simply trust his word? Perhaps it is because the Government promised not to raise VAT before the last election—and then proceeded to do the opposite by raising it to 20%. Indeed, in the last Parliament the Chancellor raised tax 24 times despite his claims to be promoting a low-tax, high-wage economy. Let me reaffirm that we do not want to see taxes raised for working people, so we will not oppose the Bill. However, it is difficult to regard it as little more than a gimmick that could have troubling consequences.
The response to the decision to legislate on this issue was remarkably consistent. The Financial Times leader of 29 April summed it up well when it said:
“Arguably the silliest idea yet came this week when David Cameron proposed an act of parliament that would make it illegal for a future Tory government to raise various taxes to close the deficit: VAT, income tax, and national insurance. Even after five years of tough spending measures, the UK fiscal deficit is still high. Removing the option of tapping revenue streams that in aggregate raise more than £350 bn for the Exchequer would make the challenge needlessly hard”.
The summer Budget, which included significant revenue-raising measures that will amount to significant tax rises for millions of people, demonstrated decisively that this was nothing more than a political stunt.
Commenting on the Budget, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“The figures are quite clear—this was a tax-raising budget”.
Tax policy measures in the Budget are expected to raise £5.1 billion by 2017-18, rising to £6.5 billion in 2020-21. So the notion that taxes on working people are being protected is an illusion.
The Government are still increasing the amount they get from tax revenues under the guise of the triple tax lock. Crucially, it could also limit the pace at which the Chancellor could act if an unexpected event arose. If the Minister does not believe this, he should listen to his noble friend Lord Lawson, who said:
“I don’t think it is a good idea … nobody knows what the economic conditions are going to be like … nobody knows what world conditions are going to be like … this was clearly done for electoral purposes not for good government”.
National insurance contributions, together with VAT and income tax, are the three largest revenue raisers for any Chancellor, so it is surprising that the Government feel the need to tie their hands in this way. The Chancellor is taking an incredible gamble that seems to be based on nothing other than the hope that no further unexpected events will occur over the course of this Parliament. If the economic outlook does change, the Chancellor will have to do more than be in listening mode—he will have to act. We are concerned that this Bill makes it harder to do that.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the contributions they have made to this interesting debate and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their support for the Bill.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I did not say that we support the Bill. I merely said we would not oppose it.
Baroness Kramer
If I might just confirm, we have no problems with the policy decision, but the decision that this needs to be encapsulated in binding legislation is a very troubling precedent.
Baroness Altmann
Then I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their support for the policy of this Bill, and also for supporting the £3,000 employment allowance and the abolition of national insurance contributions for apprentices.
Before I address the specific points raised by the noble Lords, it is important to put the Bill within the context of the significant action that the Government have already taken to reduce the burden of class 1 national insurance contributions on earnings and employment. These measures have all been strongly welcomed by business and have contributed to the current record levels of employment. I also emphasise that from April next year the Government will abolish employer class 1 national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25, as I have said. Apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s drive to equip people of all ages with the skills most valued by employers. This is a very important move. It will help employers who provide apprenticeships to young people and provide a significant boost to youth employment rates more generally.
The Bill before us today introduces the final aspect of the Government’s five-year tax lock. This is further testament to the Government’s commitment to provide certainty on tax rates for the duration of this Parliament, and it delivers on the commitment to lower levels of taxation that was made in the Conservative manifesto.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, as to whether the taxes announced in the summer Budget have breached this lock, that is not the case. The Government have been clear that the tax lock will not prevent future changes to the tax system to make it fairer or to deal with avoidance—those were the measures in the Budget. Furthermore, the Government remain committed to lowering taxes and supporting hard-working people through increases in the personal allowance.
The noble Lord also asked about an update on the measures being considered by the Office of Tax Simplification. The Government are committed to simplifying tax and to transparency. The overall aim of the project is to build on earlier work undertaken in this area, to understand the steps that would be needed to achieve closer alignment of the taxes and the costs, benefits and impact of each step. The terms of reference were published on 21 July, and the Office of Tax Simplification will publish a final report ahead of Budget 2016.
As regards whether this Bill is a gimmick, I do not believe that it is. This was a Conservative manifesto pledge and, as I have said, there is the ability in secondary legislation to increase national insurance rates by 0.25% each year on class 1. This will give an added element of certainly to businesses and employees as to the maximum rates of national insurance that they might face.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right that there could be circumstances in which tax revenues fall short and some contingency planning is required. However, future funding of contributory benefits, should national insurance contribution receipts prove insufficient, is a matter for the Chancellor, and that decision would need to be made at the relevant fiscal event based on the latest projections available at the time and taking into account the National Insurance Contributions (Rate Ceilings) Bill that we are introducing. Indeed, as the noble Baroness indicated, if there were an economic emergency, it would not normally be the economic policy of choice to increase national insurance contribution rates. The aim of this Government is to continue to drive growth and to create 2 million more jobs during this Parliament.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I think the noble Baroness is saying that I suggested that the Government had broken the triple lock in the summer Budget. I was not suggesting that they broke the triple lock but that the summer Budget had very significant tax increases—of the order of £4 billion-plus. I hope that she is not disagreeing with that assessment. If she is, perhaps she will write to me and set out the logic behind her disagreement.
Baroness Altmann
I was not assuming that the noble Lord was talking about the triple lock. Indeed, the Government are absolutely committed to the triple lock. I was talking about some of the other measures that do not breach this commitment.
I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the issues we have debated today. There are clearly a number of points that we might debate at greater length when the Bill moves to Committee. I commend the Bill and ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Finance Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O’Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, since 2010 the Government have laid the foundations for a stronger economy. We can now see that the recovery is well established. The UK had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 countries in 2014, and is reasonably well positioned for the same in 2015.The fiscal deficit has been halved as a share of GDP and national debt, as a share of GDP, is forecast to fall in 2015-16.
Working people are, generally, also feeling the benefits. Employment has increased and continues to increase reasonably rapidly, with full-time employment at record highs, as I heard my noble friend mention in the previous debate. Unemployment is lower and continues to fall. In addition to more people being in work than ever before, very importantly and encouragingly, wages continue to rise—a relatively new trend in the past 12 to 18 months or so. Therefore, it seems reasonably clear that the long-term economic plan is having some success. However, of course, the job is not done. The Finance Bill before us today is the first of this Parliament and it demonstrates this Government’s commitment to continue the work of the last five years. It implements key measures to eliminate the fiscal deficit in a way that is fair to taxpayers and supports the growth of business.
As the Chancellor set out in the summer Budget 2015, the Government want to ensure that people are able to keep more of the money that they have worked hard to earn. The Bill includes three manifesto pledges to achieve that aim. First, the Government committed to legislate within 100 days for the five-year tax lock, ruling out increases to income tax rates, VAT and national insurance contributions for the duration of this Parliament. Clauses 1 and 2 of the Finance Bill deliver the first two aspects of this commitment. The third aspect of the tax lock was debated in this House earlier today.
Secondly, the Government committed to ensuring that individuals working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not pay income tax. The Government have a proud record of reducing tax bills for the lowest paid. In total, 3.8 million individuals have been removed from income tax altogether since 2010. Clause 5 continues this record by increasing the personal allowance from £10,600 in 2015-16 to £11,000 in 2016-17 and £11,200 in 2017-18. Compared to today, 570,000 individuals will be taken out of income tax altogether by 2016-17.
As I just said, the Government have made a commitment to ensure that individuals working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage do not pay income tax. Clauses 3 and 4 will extend this commitment beyond this Parliament. Once the personal allowance has reached £12,500, it will automatically increase to stay in line with this threshold. This will be the first time in history that the personal allowance is not indexed to price inflation.
Finally, as I am sure many—if not most, or even all —noble Lords will agree, it is a natural desire to pass on a home to your children and grandchildren. Clause 9 will introduce a new inheritance tax main residence nil-rate band, so that around 93% of estates will be able to pass on all their assets without paying any inheritance tax. However, to ensure that the wealthiest continue to contribute their fair share to the public finances, the largest estates will not be able to benefit from the new nil-rate band.
These are three important manifesto commitments delivered to ensure that hard-working British people keep more of the money they earn. Of course, these commitments must be delivered in a way that is fair and sustainable. In 2013-14, the Government spent more than £34 billion on income tax relief for pensions, making it one of the most expensive reliefs. Two-thirds of this relief currently goes to higher and additional-rate payers. The Finance Bill will restrict pension tax relief for the highest earners, putting it on a more sustainable footing.
I turn briefly to productivity, a topic that I have discussed quite broadly in this place before, and will no doubt discuss again. It is well known that improving the productivity of the UK remains a historic and significant economic challenge, which this Government are eager to do something about. The summer Budget set out a number of measures to meet this challenge, including, for example, investment in infrastructure and the creation of 3 million new apprenticeships funded by a new levy on employers.
The Finance Bill implements further measures to address parts of the productivity issue. It includes several measures to back business. Clause 7 cuts the rate of corporation tax to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020. This will benefit more than a million businesses, saving them a total of £6.6 billion by 2021 and giving the UK the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20. Clause 8 increases the permanent level of the annual investment allowance to £200,000 from 2016, to provide stable and long-term incentives for small and medium-sized businesses to invest in plant and machinery.
Improving productivity, however, also means prioritising central investment in infrastructure. That is why Clause 46 reforms vehicle excise duty, to support the creation of a new roads fund. From 2020, all revenue raised from vehicle excise duty in England will be invested directly back into the strategic road network. These reforms are also being implemented in a fair and sustainable way that strengthens incentives for the cleanest cars. Nobody will pay more than they do today for the cars they already own. For cars in the new system, the vast majority of motorists will pay less than the average they pay today. Zero-emission cars will continue to pay nothing, whereas cars worth more than £40,000 will pay a supplementary charge. As I said, productivity is a challenge but it is a challenge that the Finance Bill, as well as other measures beyond it, is designed to meet.
As I set out at the beginning of this speech, the Government have made significant progress in bringing down the fiscal deficit but the hard work is not yet complete. As set out in the summer Budget, around £37 billion of fiscal consolidation is required over the next five years, and £5 billion of this will be raised by measures announced at the summer Budget to tackle tax avoidance, evasion, non-compliance and imbalances in the tax system, many of which are being legislated for in this Bill.
As evidenced in the last Parliament, this Government are tough on corporate tax avoidance. The Finance Bill continues this trend. First, Clause 44 stops investment fund managers exploiting loopholes in the tax system to avoid paying the correct amount of capital gains tax on the profits of the fund payable to them. Secondly, Clause 37 stops multinationals off-setting losses against controlled foreign companies tax to ensure that they pay tax on profits diverted from the UK. Finally, Clauses 40 and 42 stop corporate groups reducing their taxable profit by transferring stock or intangible assets around the group.
Fixing the public finances also means ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax. Clause 51 introduces a new means for HMRC to recover tax and tax credits debt directly from the bank accounts of debtors. This levels the playing field between hard-working, honest taxpayers and those who persistently refuse to pay their debts, almost half of whom have more than £20,000 readily available in cash.
The Bill also ensures that landlords with the largest incomes are no longer unfairly helped by the tax system. Landlords are able to off-set their finance costs from property income when calculating their taxable income. At present, the relief they receive is at their marginal rate of tax. This means that landlords with the largest incomes receive either 40% or 45% relief, whereas landlords with lower incomes benefit only at the basic rate of income tax—20%. Clause 24 ensures that all individual residential landlords will get the same rate of tax relief on their property finance costs.
The Government believe that it is only fair for the contribution made by banks to reflect the risk they pose to the economy. However, the UK must also remain competitive as a major dominant global financial centre. The Finance Bill introduces a balanced approach to bank taxation by introducing a new supplementary tax of 8% on banking centre profit in Clause 17, while gradually reducing the full bank levy rate over the course of this Parliament in Clause 16. This will increase banks’ tax contribution by around £2 billion over the next six years, while at the same time providing a more sustainable long-term basis of taxation.
The Government are committed to supporting low-carbon energy, while at the same time ensuring value for money. The climate change levy exemption provided indirect support only to renewable generators, and the value UK renewable generators receive from the exemption was expected to be negligible by the early 2020s. That is why Clause 49 removes this exemption. Any loss that UK renewable generators face will be small compared with the other financial support they receive from the Government, which will total around £5.1 billion in 2015-16 alone. Taken together, this Bill is tough on tax avoidance by wealthy individuals and businesses and resolute in ensuring that the tax system is balanced and fair.
In conclusion, the Finance Bill before us demonstrates the clear direction set out by the Government at the start of the Parliament. It prioritises economic security for working people, businesses and the public finances. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I will focus my brief remarks on two aspects of the Bill: one is an amendment to it and the other is an omission from it. Both would improve this legislation—they are intended to be constructive and helpful—and both are important to many millions of people, working or otherwise. First, I want to raise the issue of inheritance tax, which the Minister highlighted in his comments. Secondly, I want to raise the so-called tampon tax.
Politics is about choices, and showing who we care about and how we connect with them are central to any party’s political strategy. The choices reveal much about the values that inform our politics and our policies, and the Tory Government have recently laid bare their current values. At this time, at this defining moment, when all the analysis and forecasts of the UK economy are best described as fragile—rather than the rather robust description given by the Minister—and the public realm is about to be subjected to 40% austerity cuts, the Government have decided that the time is right, never better, to increase the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million, so that those with the most, the wealthiest 10%, get a fighting chance at keeping the wolf away from their doors. The cost to the Exchequer is close to £1 billion.
Compounding this particular choice at this time is the fact that it is being put forward while the Chancellor is seeking to cut £1,300 on average from the income of the lowest-paid 3 million working people in the country. It is a somewhat hideous juxtaposition that the Government are putting forward. The richest 10% get a £1 billion give-away; the poorest working people lose £1,300 on average a year. It is compassionate conservativism laid bare. The rhetoric may be compassionate, but the reality is conservatism.
Instead of the somewhat false fury that emanates from Downing Street about some sort of constitutional crisis in this House because of the decisions your Lordships’ House took on the issue of tax credits, they should be thanking your Lordships for getting them out of a deep hole. It was getting deeper and deeper by the minute as Conservative Member after Conservative Member was in rebellious mood about the matter. We will seek a delay on this issue, deletion of this clause, and a delay at least until the Chancellor has achieved a current budget surplus before any further consideration of changes to the inheritance tax threshold.
On the tampon tax, until the recent exchanges in the other place, I have to admit that I was unaware that VAT was payable on tampons and sanitary towels. If I had to guess the odd one out or play spot the luxury item from among the following list—Jaffa Cakes, a game of bingo, a ticket to the zoo, or tampons—I do not think I would have picked tampons as being the specific luxury item. However, apparently that is the case. Jaffa Cakes are a necessity; tampons a luxury. As we have heard, the Prime Minister this morning set out his priorities for achieving reforms in the EU in advance of the forthcoming referendum. I had hoped that, when the letter to President Tusk was written, it would have contained a line seeking support across Europe to allow tampons and sanitary towels to be zero-rated in each member state. Had he done so, his legacy would be assured. We have had some words of support from government representatives, but nothing concrete is proposed. Incidentally, the cost of this change to this country would be no more than £15 million to the Exchequer. Labour will seek to add a clause to the Finance Bill to give effect to this.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these two items in his closing summary.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in 2010 the coalition Government came into being in the face of a financial crisis and succeeded over the next five years in stabilising the economy and the country’s finances—significantly reducing the structural deficit—but they did so on the basis that we were all in it together and that the greatest burden should fall on the broadest shoulders. In his opening speech a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, gave the impression that that continues but that is the wrong word to use in this case, because the policy that we are all in it together and that the broadest shoulders should continue to carry the greatest burden is one that the Conservatives in their Budget and in this Finance Bill and various other related Bills have made a point of moving away from in an extremely distinctive manner.
It is absolutely true that we need to continue to eliminate the structural deficit. That is a responsible action to take so that we do not pass those burdens on to the next generation. But this Government are seeking to cut in the region of £50 billion more than necessary from public spending over the next five years in their goal to move from eliminating a structural deficit to building a significant surplus—a surplus that is not required by the financial conditions that we live in today. They have departed from the principle that we are all in it together.
I looked at the distributional analysis, which finally came out rather late—in June, I believe. It is a document that should have come with the Budget. It is interesting because the principles under which it is put together have changed. Indeed, I hope that the Treasury might engage with us at some point to explain further those changes and their implications. But what is absolutely fascinating about the distributional analysis is that it focuses almost exclusively on the benefits delivered by the coalition and gives virtually no sense to the change that was introduced, marked and signalled by the first Budget and embedded, in part, in this Finance Bill.
It is clear from looking at the distributional analysis that by 2017-18 those in the wealthiest quintiles will have had no proportionate loss in the welfare benefits that they receive. Presumably that is because harsh reductions in welfare are being introduced for the lowest quintiles in the Budget and the related legislation that has been presented to us, but it is difficult to tease that out because of the way in which the distributional analysis glosses over the difference created in this past year. I have noticed that in his various responses to Questions in this House, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, also talks as if the coalition period was the marked umbrella, and barely pays attention to the change of direction which his Government have so proudly heralded in shifting away from placing the burden on those broadest shoulders and beginning the process of pushing it back on to the weakest shoulders.
To be honest, when we were in coalition, Conservatives did argue that we should not be putting so much on the wealthy, and that the burden ought to be falling on those at the bottom of the scale because they were benefit recipients. I would very much appreciate at some point hearing from the Treasury how it has made those changes from its perspective. Until then, we are dependent on the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, reported, has identified so clearly the huge burden of tax credit cuts that fall on the working poor and are not offset by the changes in the living wage or childcare. So we have moved away from “We are all in it together” and it is particularly the working poor, young people and those with disabilities who suffer the most.
Of course, I welcome some of the key pillars of this Finance Bill. The increase in the personal allowance—a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy—is captured in the Bill and obviously we are very pleased to see that there. We are supporters of the new living wage, although it is inappropriate to call it a living wage because it is not a wage on which anyone could live; it is a new minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage is welcome, although I hope at some point we will hear from the Government how they intend to cope with the consequences for, for example, local authorities or the care home sector or others which will struggle to pay that minimum wage; that is not an argument for discarding it but we need to understand how on earth those costs are going to be properly absorbed in the current climate. We are also pleased, obviously, with the restrictions on pension tax relief, which is an important measure in the Bill. It is beyond us, however—and I echo the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, in this—why the inheritance tax cut is being introduced at this time, when such a burden is being placed on the working poor. Surely that timing almost adds insult to injury.
We do not accept that reductions in the bank levy have been necessary: the banks are brilliant lobbyists, and this is good evidence that they have been successful. I am spending two other days this week working on the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill, which has further roll-backs of the various measures that were imposed on the banks in response to their behaviour that generated the financial crisis—not just the original crisis, but consequential crises such as LIBOR, various money-laundering and PPI. The bank levy, therefore, has to be looked on in the light of effective lobbying by the banking industry and not as a necessary measure to sustain the financial services industry in this country. Moreover, I do not understand why it is the right time to raise the higher-rate tax threshold, when we are placing so many burdens on those at the bottom of the scale, the young, and the disabled.
The Minister talked about productivity, which is obviously his area of special interest. Productivity is going to be absolutely key to our future, so I fully recognise the importance of the comments that he made. However, this Finance Bill, and the other actions of the Treasury, once again fail to recognise the difference between capital and revenue: they are rolled together again. I know that it is a conviction of the Chancellor that one should not make distinctions between capital and revenue, but I completely fail to understand the arguments that are meant to support it. There is such an infrastructure deficit after generations of neglect in this country—I think everyone in this House would agree that that was true, in area after area, whether rail, road, broadband, energy generation or, in particular, housing—that we are generations behind where we should be on both infrastructure renewal and infrastructure building. Under such a circumstance, when the British Government can borrow at the lowest rates they have seen for generations, this should be the opportunity to accelerate investment into that sector. It should be distinguished from revenue in the management of the fiscal framework, and this Bill does not succeed in doing that. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some argument as to why that has not happened, because I fail to see one. It is a lost opportunity and passes on to the next generation the burden of making that infrastructure catch up.
I have a small question on the road fund. It is unusual for the British Government to hypothecate taxes to a particular spending commitment. In this case, VED is being hypothecated to road infrastructure. Will the Minister tell us which areas are now going to lose investment as a consequence of that hypothecation? The cake is not expanding: it is just being given to one particular party, so it would be helpful to understand how all that is put together. That being said, I am glad to hear of his ongoing commitment to ultra-low-emission vehicles. It is an area in which the UK can be an absolute leader. We need it not just because of our own environment, but because it offers great potential for jobs in the future. We are becoming leaders in the R&D in this area, and there is a very significant opportunity to be snatched and taken—if the Government continue their commitment to it, which began under the coalition.
The Government referred to the training levy. It is absolutely apparent that we must increase skills within the UK. It is the major reason that any business would give for our failure to achieve productivity on a par with our competitors, whether in the European Union or looking further afield. I see the advantages of the training levy, but how are we going to tackle the need for training within SMEs? I can understand the reluctance not to put a levy on small and medium-sized businesses that may not be able to bear it, but they have to become significant providers of apprenticeships and training. The Government need to tell us why they have not used this Bill to enhance that potential. There is an increase in the national insurance employment allowance, but I do not think anybody believes that that alone is sufficient to generate the levels of training that we need in the SME sector.
I disagree with the Minister that removing the climate change levy exemption for renewable energy is a minor factor. This is about the green economy, which again is fundamental to our future. We moved, over a five-year period, from being laggards in the green economy to creating the basis for some of the leading green industries across the globe, generating significant numbers of jobs. The decision to remove that exemption seems to me to be part of a much broader anti-green strategy, as is the decision not to implement zero-carbon homes. We have had example after example where green measures have been watered down, apparently for ideological reasons, because the numbers we are talking about in terms of the overall government budget are absolutely minimal. The green industries are taking that to heart and understand very clearly that they are getting the message from this Government that, instead of this being a place where a green future is being encouraged and underpinned, it is going to be, at the very best, treated with indifference.
SMEs are absolutely crucial to our future. Many in this House can testify to the fact that small and medium-sized businesses provide something like 90% of the jobs in this country, are a leading provider of exports and are absolutely critical as the backbone of the UK. So why have the Government chosen to reduce corporation tax, which is paid by very few SMEs? To the extent that it is paid, it is a very small part of their expenditure. It is the large corporations that benefit from the cuts in corporation tax, and surely that is exactly the wrong decision. This would have been an opportunity to provide support to small businesses, particularly around training but also to enable them to achieve the kind of growth and scale-up which we need for our future. Frankly, when we are already one of the countries with the lowest corporation tax in the OECD, using this opportunity to bring it down so that we will be the country with the absolute lowest rate of corporation tax seems simply wrong as a priority. It does not bring a whole lot of benefit and is targeted on exactly the wrong part of business. Having that money flowing into small businesses and providing them with support would be far more beneficial. However, I recognise that the Government are helping small businesses by keeping the annual investment allowance at £200,000, which surely is good news.
The Minister talked about tackling tax evasion. Who could complain about that? However, I suspect there is much more work to be done as we try and get a grip on the new digital economy, and the Bill goes only a very small way in trying to grasp that nettle. I recognise that this is a complex issue and a great deal of work needs to be done in this area, but this new focus on tax evasion and enforcement of tax payment comes when we have just heard that HMRC has agreed to something like a 30% reduction in its spending over the remainder of this Parliament. We are already in a situation where again and again HMRC does not seem to have the manpower necessary to enforce tax law. It certainly does not have the manpower necessary to respond to the endless queries from the many individual and small business payers that need to speak with it to get their affairs in order. A further cut at this point just seems, again, entirely inappropriate. Is the Minister able to give us some assurance that the resources will be available for the extensive programme to deal with tax evasion that he has talked about today?
I finish by referring to the Charter for Fiscal Responsibility—the tax lock, as the Minister described it. As I said in discussion on the then National Insurance Contributions Bill, it seems extraordinary that a Government make a pledge that they will carry out a policy but then so distrust themselves that they decide that they have to capture it in legislation. That is a very dangerous precedent.
I have raised this issue before. One reason that we ended up with a financial crisis to which it was so difficult for the Government to respond was because of real arrogance in the Treasury. We had a Labour Government, a Gordon Brown Government, who had decided that boom and bust were over. I have always said that I do not think that Alistair Darling would for five minutes have agreed to the public spending that Labour committed to had he ever thought that an economic cycle could impact the country, never mind an external shock.
That same arrogance seems to be back here. The Government are once again deliberately tying their hands. I know that they say that if growth drops to 1%, they can step away from the constraints that they have put themselves in, but that is too late. The Minister will tell me if it is different, but I am certain, looking back, that nobody forecast the financial crisis. When a crisis comes, the need to be able to respond is immediate; it cannot be embedded in a forecast for a five-year period. Governments have to have that freedom and flexibility to act, and act quickly.
We must never get ourselves into a situation where we are in a car, we can see the crash coming but we cannot veer out of the way. That is exactly where this Government are putting themselves. It comes from that utter conviction that things will never go wrong. Well, they do go wrong. It is essential that Governments recognise that. Not to be able to use VAT, which is a tax that can be used very rapidly if necessary to remedy a problem, strikes me as significant.
There is a lot that is unsatisfactory in the Bill. There is nothing much that this House will be able to do about the exact clauses, as we take no votes on money Bills, but I am glad to say that many aspects are not part of a money Bill, and I hope that we will be able to tackle those when they come before this House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Gatley for introducing this Second Reading debate. I was not quite sure how to approach it, as it is a strange one to be holding in your Lordships’ House, but I start by congratulating the Government on their continuing determination, as I see it, to do whatever is needed to restore good health to the nation’s finances. I realise that that is not always popular or easy, but it is urgent.
With every passing day, the perception grows that things are not quite so bad after all. “Why not water down the medicine?”, some are saying. Some commentators come close to saying that Ministers themselves share that delusion. We remain in a very dangerous place, and it is much to the credit of this Government that they hold to the course on which they were elected. I believe that we are heading for a strong economy, the chief beneficiaries of which are the working poor. It saddens me to think that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, cannot accept that.
This afternoon, I want to touch on the topical issue of infrastructure and how it can be financed. Especially, I want to focus on my local town of Barrow-in-Furness and its surrounding area. As I have told your Lordships before, we are expecting investment in the region of £40 billion over the next decade. It will come from shipbuilding, pharmaceuticals, civil nuclear, offshore gas and other things, and a very exciting prospect that is for an area whose economic future has not always been certain.
Here I should perhaps declare a personal interest. I make no secret of the fact that the group of family companies of which I used to be chairman—I have now handed over to my daughter—will want to take advantage of that investment. I refer noble Lords to the Register of Lords’ Interests.
I think I am right in saying that private or institutional investment in infrastructure projects is at an all-time low. In 2008-09 infrastructure spending reached £57 billion. Since then it has dropped, in 2013-14, to £42 billion. The Chancellor’s anticipated commitment to spend £100 billion on infrastructure will be greatly welcomed, but how to find the money?
Brooding on this, I was struck by a piece I found on the Centre for Political Studies online news service, CapX, written by George Trefgarne whose father, of course, has long adorned your Lordships’ House with great distinction. Mr Trefgarne’s piece is headed with the words: “An idea whose time has come: project bonds.” I strongly commend it and further reading on the subject to your Lordships.
There was a consensus that allowed my party’s programme of privatisation and the less than ideal PFI arrangements of the party opposite. For whatever reason, that consensus collapsed after the financial crisis. In consequence, there seems to be very little appetite among investors for participating in today’s projects or mechanisms to attract those investors. It is difficult to reconcile the Chancellor’s spending ambitions with his admirable goal of deficit reduction. It is not only the annual deficit that should concern us, but the many billions of pounds that are set to be added to the national debt. Worse, unless a solution is found the Treasury will be on course once again to be in charge of every road, hospital and railway system in the land.
Mr Trefgarne’s article highlights a potential solution that is being canvassed both here and abroad. Instead of relying on the public sector to deliver our vital infrastructure needs, new companies would be created, perhaps jointly owned by a combination of devolved Administrations, local authorities and private sector investors. They would keep revenues and charges and in turn issue their own debt, underwritten at least in part by the taxpayer. Experience elsewhere suggests that project bonds offer long-term investors attractive yields and significant credit spreads. Typically, they are attractive to pension funds and life insurance companies. I understand that even in countries where public finance is not so constrained, project bonds are used to diversify funding, meet regulatory demands, improve efficiency or quite simply tap into private sector expertise.
The system is not so different from the one the Victorians presided over that led to the great boom in bridge, canal and railway building, but one does not have to hark back so far for a similar precedent. I believe London’s Crossrail is coming in on time and on budget, if I am permitted to sing the praises of the mayor in your Lordships’ House. It is funded by a coalition of private and public interests, and Transport for London has been licensed by the Treasury to issue its own debt to fund it. The EU and the European Investment Bank are running project bond pilot projects.
Of course, I am telling my noble friend nothing new, but I would like to ask him how closely he has followed the project bond debate and what conclusions he draws. Does he agree that such a mechanism will not occur without the Treasury willing it to happen? I think I may be right in saying that the Treasury has experience of and a track record with similar financial mechanisms. The proposal would in effect entail the Government launching and licensing an entirely new capital market. Can my noble friend say whether the Government stand ready to do such a thing? Combined with the incomparable existing skills in the City, that makes for a hugely exciting prospect—and a huge problem removed from the Government. If an increasing number of proponents are right about the potential of project bonds, then why wait? Above all, why wait until Wall Street or some other financial centre steals a march on us?
Returning to Barrow-in-Furness, my personal view is that the beautiful area in which I live is ill-prepared for the large investments I have talked about coming its way. By any measurement, our infrastructure is in a shocking state of disrepair. I have grounds for thinking that our local government representatives are in touch with Ministers and seek ways to remedy these problems. I wish them well. When I was in local government, I remember being tremendously impressed by the skill and ingenuity of our financial officers. I dare say it is a different skill set from the one my noble friend finds at the Treasury, but it is nevertheless completely appropriate to a rural county with a few dominant tier 1 companies and myriad SMEs, among which my family businesses are included. I look forward to a time when devolved government will once again allow this reservoir of skill to be deployed for the benefit of local people, jobs and services.
Finally, I repeat a plea I have made in other debates. It will not be lost on my noble friend that much of the investment I talked about stems from government procurement of one kind or another. Like the Government, tier 1 companies have cultural problems when it comes to engaging with SMEs. A more sinister problem is when tier 1 companies collude to keep SMEs out. There is often much comforting talk about benefits to the local supply chain, but again and again they fail to materialise. Is it possible to compel large companies to report on what proportion of their business benefits local companies? Also, could the Government be rather more forceful in changing this culture, especially given that they are ultimately the customer?
It is a pleasure to speak about the problems of success. My noble friend the Minister is an economist of great distinction and I have no doubt he will make a great contribution to Britain’s economic recovery. I live in a rather different world from him—among people who make things, grow things and do things, and market their wares at home and overseas. Our whole existence is about judging risk and living with the consequences. We seldom make a headline, nor do we seek to do so. However, I remind my noble friend that we represent 95% of this nation’s economy. I hope that, as he surveys his huge brief, he will keep in mind that the sector’s interests also need his concern and protection.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, even though we cannot do much about it, I welcome this opportunity to debate the Finance Bill because it is a chance to expose a mismatch between what the Government promise and what is actually in the Bill. We are promised a fairer and more equal society, a more prosperous economy based on higher skills, higher-paid jobs and a greener and more pleasant land. The Finance Bill says otherwise.
The most glaring example of inequality is of course the mismatch between the rising minimum wage and reducing benefits, which leaves millions of poorer people worse off. The IFS distributional analysis says it all but there are other examples. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lennie that raising the inheritance tax threshold at a time of austerity must contribute towards inequality. Surely the time to raise inheritance tax thresholds is when our current account is in balance or even surplus. What the Chancellor is doing now is just giving the better-off a tax break, especially as the IFS tells us that the percentage of the population liable for inheritance tax is in single digits. As other noble Lords said, this comes at a time when 3 million working families are at risk of being worse off next year. We still do not know how the social care sector will manage. It really is a bit of a shambles.
The Minister spoke of anti-avoidance measures for corporations and individuals. Yes, those are welcome but how robust are these measures? According to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, corporation and income tax revenues are decreasing. Is this because they are not being collected by an efficient and motivated staff, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer? Is this yet another example of this Government alienating their public servants? Nurses and doctors, teachers and carers, police and firefighters: do we now add Revenue and Customs staff? The Public Accounts Committee in another place seems to think so. These measures will not be effective if the Government are not an effective employer.
We are also promised a more prosperous economy, hopefully through productivity and rising skills. However, skills are changing all the time in our digital economy and it is good practice for people in work to upskill through part-time study. In 2012 tuition fee loans were extended to part-time students, but they were hedged about with so many restrictions that few took them up. As a result, we have seen a sharp decline in the number of part-time students and the courses available to them. This is confirmed by this morning’s news about FE colleges. Despite much debate and frequent presentation of the facts, the Bill does not recognise this. Nor is there any mention of part-time education in the Green Paper published on 6 November. Consequently, we are losing a huge opportunity to raise the skills of our workforce, although that is industry’s most frequent complaint. This is despite the good intentions in the Minister’s recent productivity paper.
That paper also referred to the housing crisis. In spite of what the Minister said, the Bill does nothing to hold back ever higher rents, higher deposits, falling home ownership and the lowest rate of housebuilding that any of us can remember. All this is with a rising housing benefit bill and less secure tenancies. Despite what the Minister said, the Bill does nothing to encourage a culture of productivity; the kind of culture you immediately sense when you walk into a highly productive business or service. We have a financial strategy reflected in the Bill, but no industrial strategy. This is why our economy remains unbalanced, with growth still depending on low wages, rising house prices and rising consumer credit.
With the Paris meeting due soon, perhaps my greatest disappointment with the Bill is that it reduces our commitment to combating climate change. The Minister told us of the exemption of renewables from the climate change levy which is, incidentally, back-dated. The levy was designed both to promote energy efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. Since then, subsidies for onshore wind have been virtually removed with a single cut. At least these changes could have been tapered.
Another example of diminishing commitment to climate change in the Bill is the vehicle excise duty for passenger cars, which the Minister spoke about. Levels of excise duty used to deter high-polluting cars and encourage low-polluting ones. The new, rather complicated, rules seem to have abandoned this. Instead, under the new proposals, cars in band A, which paid no road tax, will pay much the same tax in years two and beyond as cars in band M, the highest-polluting band. Setting aside the public scepticism about car emission figures, what is the purpose of penalising polluting cars only in the first year? Is it just to maintain revenue from cars, irrespective of emissions; is it just to invest in roads? There were three items of news this morning about climate change. The Bill really ought to recognise it.
These are just a few examples of the way this Bill does not reflect the rhetoric of the Government. It certainly does not move us towards the greener, more prosperous and more equal society that we have been promised.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, it seems a long time since the second Budget was announced. This second Finance Bill has had rather limited media coverage. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of my noble friend Lord Cavendish about the need for infrastructure investment and about the success, going back into our history, of financing models that have involved both public and private sector. Crossrail has been, in our time, a brilliant example of that, and is on time and on cost.
Credit must go to the Chancellor for having got things dramatically right and having got this economy recovering better than any other in the world. All those clever left-wing economists told him he had got it wrong, and the IMF rapped his knuckles and so forth. He in essence followed a sensible, balanced path. He was substantially Keynesian and did not overdo trying to cut the deficit. However, he also took measures that helped the real economy to expand.
As I have said before, there has been a wonderful entrepreneurial explosion in the past five years. We have 5 million new companies, we are leading the world in a lot of tech areas, and it has been an age of greater entrepreneurial activity than I can remember ever in my lifetime. As we all know, it is producing more than 13 million jobs in the economy.
I also think that, although things are not all resolved, the balance of putting the public finances right is about right over the next five years. I was rereading a book on Disraeli the other day, noting that, as late as 1868, debt service on the borrowings that had financed the Peninsular Wars at the beginning of the 19th century were still the biggest item of public expenditure. If you overborrow, you end up burdening future generations with too much debt to service.
If people stand back and look at the whole area of welfare spending, they will see that something is very clearly wrong. Alistair Darling has been the most honest politician to point out what is wrong. Total welfare spending now is running at close to £300 billion a year because you have the basic of £231 billion, to which you have to add personal social spending of £30 billion. Housing claims benefit is now approximately another £30 billion. I am not even clear whether working tax credits, now up from their original £2 billion to £30 billion per annum, are still treated as a net-off from income tax revenues, which was the accounting fix that Gordon Brown put in, or whether they are within the total.
At least a third of public expenditure now goes on different forms of welfare spending. The point Alistair Darling had the honesty to make was that, with income tax credits, what was intended to boost incomes was simply serving to drive down and hold down wages. We have a system similar to that which we had in the early 19th century, when what was called outdoor relief was paid. It led to overemployment, poor productivity and underinvestment. When it ended, there was a great burst in wages, the new industries came up and people moved to the new areas.
Now we have a ridiculous system in which someone is better off working 16 hours a week on low pay, with the top-up tax credits, than working 40 hours a week on average pay. The whole formula in these areas needs addressing radically. I would go even further: the German model of dealing with welfare, which is assessed individually, ends up being much more sensible than our arrangements, which often help those who would be much better off if they worked a full, normal working week, and often do not help those who do need more help.
I repeat: it is well overdue for politicians of all parties to realise that income tax credits have been an economic disaster for this country, with exactly the same unsatisfactory effects as the system had 200 years ago. Of course, you must have a relatively high minimum wage if you are to have income tax credits, or employers tend to exploit it by not paying people sufficiently. Now, it is all well and good; £7.20 will go up to £9 by 2020, but that is particularly damaging in parts of the country where the cost of living is much lower, especially the housing costs. Those parts are landed with too high a minimum wage, so losing the economic advantage that they would otherwise have in getting businesses to move towards them. Then you say that perhaps you should have different minimum wages for different parts of the country, but imagine the complexity of trying to administer that. We have yet to see how measures will be worked out. I am certain that the Conservative Government wish to be fair to people, but it is a mistake for people not to perceive that income tax credits have caused a lot of the problems of our times.
I have some criticisms of this Bill. To me, there is too much stealth tax in it, and I feel that Gordon Brown would have been rather proud of it. Indeed, it rather smacks of quite a lot of the type of thing that he used to get up to. Hidden within it, the middle classes, whom I still stand up for, are having their tax bills increased by something approaching £20 billion, but in a way that the Government hope they will not realise, such as in the change on dividend income. No one really knows how dividends are taxed anyway—but that tax will add about £8 billion or £9 billion a year to the bills of ordinary people’s pension funds. I support corporation tax being reduced to 18% by 2020; I accept that to some extent it is a headline tax, but at least that attracts businesses to being based here. But the extra 8% tax on banks makes little sense, to my mind. Banks need another £355 billion of capital over the next few years to be safe against financial risk in future. They have been subject to fines of something like $300 billion, and now there are higher taxes. All that means, again, is that pension fund shareholders will end up having to put up more money; they are the people the Government are really taxing by the 8% profits tax.
The increase in insurance premiums from 6% to 9.5% will hit about 20 million home owners and car owners on their various insurance policies, with a cost in the order of another £2 billion per annum. I wonder why the Chancellor did not stick to the pledge that he gave—which was so popular and led Gordon Brown to put off having an election—when he said that he would simply raise the IHT threshold to £1 million. But no, we have some extremely complicated arrangement, whereby it works for some but, if your estate is worth above a certain level, you do not qualify. Would it have been easier for him to have stuck to his promise, which was extremely popular?
On pensions, I think the lifetime limit is foolish. This country needs a higher level of saving and investment, which is a function of that; we need to stop having to sell the family silver the whole time because our current account deficit is so large, yet we are discouraging the better-off from saving. It is fair that people should all have the same 20% tax credit, but we are getting a pension law loaded to discourage those earning higher incomes from saving more in their pensions.
Then there is something that is not the fault of the Government but, I am afraid, that of the EU Trade Commissioner. I have spoken of the EIS system and the VCT arrangements before—and I declare my interests as chair of the EIS Association. EIS has raised more than £12 billion of high-risk equity investment for small companies, and in 2010 the Government agreed arrangements with Europe that led to big increases in the amount of money that it raised. For reasons I cannot understand, complicated rules have now been forced on the UK by the EU Competition Commissioner that will limit the amount of money available, especially to SMEs that have cut their teeth, been going two or three years, and then need some more money to expand. I cannot see how the EU concept of state aid relates in any way to what the Government of this country choose to do in offering incentives to people to invest in local SMEs. Why does the EU have the right to stick its finger into this and—perhaps not make a mess of it, because there is still good scope—but—damage what has worked extremely well?
Even on buy to let there is a misunderstanding. Before pensions, people used to buy one or two houses, if they could, and let them out. That was their source of income in old age. Those were the people who owned and financed a lot of the Victorian terraces all over south Wales, as well as London. The generation now in their 40s has often gone down the route of buying houses to let rather than using pension schemes—for rather good reasons, because as an asset, houses have performed better. The only tax incentive for that has been the ability to off-set interest. I am not sure how wise these measures will be. Without buy to let, lots of people would have had nowhere to live in the past few years. I certainly do not agree with retrospective taxation. We can change the tax laws for new purchases, but it is unwise to change tax arrangements retrospectively. I can just see what will happen: a time will come when inflation and interest rates rise, and the housing market goes down. Then there will be problems.
That touches on something I mentioned earlier. While the economy is expanding, it is crucial to get our savings rate up so that our investment rate can rise and our external finances come into balance. If anything, what is in the Finance Bill is not at all conducive to saving; in fact it is negative towards saving.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, on the discreet way in which he described this measure, but I think it is disgraceful to give HMRC the power to raid people’s bank accounts for sums of more than £1,000. Why should not the Government, like any citizen, have to rely on the power of the courts to go after money owing to them? To me, that is a totalitarian measure of the kind that we have fought against for almost 1,000 years. It shows the Government in a very poor light if they put that sort of thing on the statute book.
I am critical of a lot of the Finance Bill, speaking as a capitalist and as representing, in a sense, the middle classes of this country. But I am full of praise for the Chancellor for the way he has so successfully managed the economy.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, much has been said and debated in the past few days as to whether your Lordships’ House can amend a statutory instrument that relates to money. As the instrument was not a money Bill, such amendments, fatal or otherwise, were allowable. However there is no doubt that the Finance Bill before us today both is a Bill and relates to money. Therefore, as other noble Lords have said, we cannot amend it.
I would like to take this opportunity to raise what happens when the other place gets it wrong on a money Bill. That can be because too little time is spent in the other place, or because of hasty government amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, took us back a couple of hundred years, but I only want to take us back to March this year. The March 2015 Finance Bill—not the Bill before us today—had a clause added to it without consultation, and was enacted two days after that addition was made. The Government did not notify the umbrella company sector that it would be making those changes at that late stage. In speaking today, I am seeking that the Government should think again with the current Bill and repeal the section in question.
The section will prevent contractors and freelancers claiming their legitimate tax relief at source as they have always been able to do. Instead, because of the hastily added section in the March Finance Act 2015, they will now only be able to claim via self-assessment, which at best will result in a significant delay during which time the individual will be out of pocket. I refer of course to Section 289A of the March 2015 Act relating to exemption for paid or reimbursed expenses. The addition of subsection (5)(b), which contains an innocuous, convoluted phrase, will affect about 400,000 contractors by delaying receipt of their properly incurred tax relief. Whereas at present the tax relief is given at source, it will now have to be claimed after the end of the tax year. Many contractors will fail to do so; many will need to employ an accountant to sort it out; and—just imagine—the overworked and understaffed HMRC will need to process an additional 400,000 tax returns.
I have had recent experience of trying to phone my inspector of taxes. On three occasions, I was told I was in the queue and should be answered in 35 minutes. On the first two occasions I gave up; on the third occasion I hung on for 45 minutes, when a charming, helpful but overworked inspector dealt with my query. My noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to the pressures on HMRC, and the effect of this section in the March 2015 Act will exacerbate that no end.
I have knowledge of this sector of the industry through having served in this House on the Select Committee on Personal Service Companies and as a now retired chartered accountant. Many companies do not employ contractors directly as employees: many use an umbrella company. This is not a brolly manufacturer but a company that acts as an employer to agency contractors who work under a fixed-term contract assignment, usually through a recruitment employment agency in the United Kingdom. The umbrella company receives the fee and pays it to the agency contractor after deducting full PAYE. However, the umbrella company can deduct at source relevant and valid expenses before calculating the PAYE. The expenses will be valid in calculating the tax but by this mysterious section, which suddenly appeared in the March Finance Act 2015 with two days’ notice, the tax relief on expenses would have to wait until the end of the tax year and beyond and use up the valuable HMRC staff time—to which other noble Lords have referred—to achieve no material tax gain to the Exchequer.
This is not only a technical point. Umbrella companies are a critical element in supporting the UK’s flexible workforce. They offer workers the platform to work without the worry of running their own companies while offering employers, directly or through an agency, the flexible workforce they require. Umbrella employees will see significant drops in their monthly income because of the delays they will face when claiming for tax relief that they are legitimately entitled to. Many of those affected will also have the added administrative burden of filing a self-assessment tax return which they had previously not needed to complete.
However, the significant number of umbrella employees in the UK—estimated to be at least 300,000 and probably 400,000—means that this will have a significant impact on the economy, particularly in restricting the flexibility of the workforce. The opportunity to provide contractors with their entitled tax relief at source is a key benefit for individuals choosing an umbrella firm—a perfectly acceptable tax use—and the new law would effectively remove this key commercial advantage, putting the whole industry at risk. The Freelancer and Contractor Services Association calculates the impact of the section is financially greater for many families than the loss of tax credits. That demonstrates how important this is.
I ask the Government to consider in the current Finance Bill repealing Section 289A(5)(b) of the March 2015 Finance Act—I am sure the Minister has it close to his chest and remembers every word of it—or, at the very least, to insert a new clause to delay the implementation of Section 289A(5)(b) for 12 months to enable a full consultation to take place so that an impact assessment can be made. I hope that the Minister will take this suggestion—that is all we can do in a Finance Bill debate—back to the Government so as to remedy in this Bill what may have been the unintended consequences of a section added to the previous Finance Bill and enacted two days later.
Turning back briefly to today’s debate, given that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, referred to the fact that the reduction in tax credits was a dreadful thing, I ought to put on record that the Liberal Democrat amendment failed. I then went home and on the television I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that the Labour Party was fully against any reduction in tax credits, which was not what happened in the vote. What we voted for in the end was a deferment of tax credits.
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, talked about the tribute to the mayor for Crossrail. I pay tribute to him for giving the credit to the Labour mayor who introduced Crossrail, and for bringing this to this House in that manner.
I hope that the noble Lord will take into account the difficulties of this House giving advice on a Finance Bill—a money Bill—which will be listened to by the other place.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I shall comment briefly on just one aspect of the Finance Bill. Before doing so, I must say that it must have been a relief to the Chancellor not to have had to negotiate with the Liberal Democrats.
It is fundamental in this country that all are equal under the law; “all” includes the Government, in whatever guise—the Government, the state, the Administration. No one should be above the law. Schedule 8 to the Bill, briefly referred to by my noble friend Lord Flight, allows HMRC to take money directly from a person’s bank account without first seeking approval from a court of law. Yes, there are safeguards, but the principle behind Schedule 8 is wrong and it should not have been put forward. I imagine that is why the same idea was withdrawn after it was proposed in 2007. There is also some doubt about the security of the safeguards, as Clause 47(2) allows the Treasury to use secondary legislation to amend or alter at will.
It is right that HMRC should be able to collect taxes, but not that it should be above the law. It must be subject to the law in the same way as everybody else. One of the justifications given for enforcement by direct deduction from bank accounts is that more revenue will be raised than would be if HMRC first had to apply to the courts. This raises the question of whether some direct deductions might not have been approved in a court of law. If that were not the case, how could more money be collected?
If Schedule 8 is enacted, there are instances in the Bill where a decision is left to the discretion of HMRC, even if only by default, because of the lack of a time limit for a response or action by HMRC. This could create unreasonable delays, effectively freezing bank accounts. In particular, there is a time limit of 30 days for a response by HMRC in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 8. Can the Minister clarify that the same time limit applies to paragraph 11(3)? It would appear that it does but that may not be the case.
The Explanatory Notes emphasise that there will be face-to-face interviews with taxpayers before these powers are used. It is too late for this to be in the Bill. We are all familiar with the need to make economies, forcing reductions in public services, but I would argue that ensuring every debtor receives a face-to-face meeting with HMRC officers is not something that should be put at risk when HMRC is looking at ways to reduce costs. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that face-to-face meetings will not be abandoned. After all it was a major selling point of getting Schedule 8 to the Bill through the House of Commons.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate and the Minister will enjoy summing up these varied contributions. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, has just said, and what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said earlier about tax inspectors. I cannot remember them raising the issue on how the bedroom tax would be enforced and whether people would in any shape or form suffer any derogation of liberty when investigations were done on that front. Of course, we accept that the Inland Revenue has to work within the framework of the law and we are glad that that has been emphasised, so the two contributions were of some value.
I will begin by commenting on those parts of the Bill which my party finds acceptable, and on which we congratulate the Government. On the annual allowance on pensions, Clause 23 restricts tax relief on pensions for high-income individuals by introducing a tapered annual allowance with effect from 6 April. It restricts tax relief for pensions contributions for those who earn more than £150,000 a year. So there is a gesture of some recognition of fairness as far as pensions are concerned.
We also recognise the relief for finance costs related to residential property businesses in Clause 24. That will ensure that relief will be at only 20% for those landlords claiming on mortgage interest payments. Some of them in the past have claimed 45%, which approaches a level of being scandalous. We are glad that that loophole has been plugged.
We are also interested in the anti-avoidance provisions and congratulate the Government on making progress in that area. Clauses 40 and 41 ensure that investment fund managers who receive carried interest are taxed within capital gains rules. We would have liked to see those interest earnings treated as income rather than as a capital gain. The manager does not contribute a meaningful amount to buy the investment, so why he should be taxed at the lower rate in those circumstance is not clear. The OECD has produced a report calling for carried interest to be taxed as income, and I hope that we will subscribe to that position in due course.
We welcome certain other areas of the Bill which, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, are also welcome to the Liberal Democrats. I see merit in the vehicle excise duty changes, which she praised highly, but not to the extent that she does. We all recognise that VED needed reform. Green or more carbon-efficient vehicles are becoming more common, which will undoubtedly have implications for vehicle excise duty as a future source of government revenue. The fact that zero-emission vehicles will continue to be exempt from road tax is, of course, welcome, but we are concerned that a flat rate of VED, as outlined in the Bill, will mean that low-emission vehicles will pay £800 or £1,000 more over a seven-year period while many high-emission vehicles are expected to pay up to £440 less. We have, therefore, some anxieties about the way in which that new system is being introduced. We also have concerns about the potential impact of the new VAT system on car manufacturing in this country. There certainly need to be changes, but we do not believe that what is included in relation to vehicle excise duty is the right change for the environment, the consumer or manufacturing industry. It is a good shot by the Government but they have not hit the target as we would have wished.
Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Haskel emphasised—he was very critical of the Government and I endorse his criticism—the position of the Government on green issues in this Bill is lamentable. The Bill removes a climate change levy exemption for renewable source electricity generated after August 2015. Can the Minister say whether there was any consultation with the industry about this issue, or any impact assessment produced? Or is it just another example of the Government undermining investment confidence in the renewable energy sector?
We sought to bring amendments to improve Clause 27 on Report in the other place, but were unsuccessful. Last week, more than 100 green energy groups wrote to the Chancellor asking him to think again and warning that the proposal to deny community energy investors access to both enterprise investment schemes and social investment tax relief is seen by many in the sector as a final nail in the coffin for future projects. This comes in a week when the wider world is emphasising the actions that need to be taken, particularly by the advanced world, to reduce the impact on the environment of global warming. The Government are stepping back from their commitments in these areas. The Government are hollowing out the renewable energy market from producer to consumer. Whether you are a large company looking to invest in a growing global market or a local community energy project seeking to inform and educate the local public, this Government are clearly not on your side.
Members on both sides of the House referred to the fact that the Bill provides for an inheritance tax threshold of £1 million for married couples and civil partners by the end of this Parliament. This was commended by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and others on his side and criticised by my noble friends Lord Haskel and Lord Lennie. How can the Government continually emphasise that it is about encouraging those of the working population who deserve support but then happily say that it is also entirely right that people should inherit more than they can possibly earn in one year, in fact over 10 years, when property is transferred to them?
Surely there has to be some recognition by the Government, apart from pandering to the electorate in the search for votes, of equity in this area. We have sought, in the other place, to amend the inheritance tax scheme contained in Clause 9, but without success. We had a little more success when subsequently we tackled the tax credit cuts that the Chancellor sought to bring forward. Is it not extraordinary that the Government should think that the poorest in society, those on very modest incomes, should be hit at the rate of £1,300 a year while the better-off should gain from enhanced inheritance tax opportunities? The Government, and the Minister, have a lot to do to justify themselves on this issue.
Another issue has cropped up in the context of whether taxation in our society is fair. More than 30 years ago, when I first entered the House of Commons in 1974, we were just beginning to debate with some force whether levying VAT on sanitary products was biased against women and not fair to the consumer. Over that long period, we still have not levied the same taxation on sanitary products as is levied on chocolate-chip biscuits, Jaffa cakes and toffee apples, which are all exempt from the relevant taxation.
The Government could have done a great deal in the Budget but what was the overall position adopted in it? The Minister introduced the Bill with his usual calm assurance and insight and took us through the clauses very effectively. He prefaced his remarks with a statement about the enormous success of the Chancellor’s management of the economy. However, he is best placed to recognise that aspects of the current economic scene are extremely worrying. Our productivity and investment record are still poor and our productivity rate is below that of our G7 competitors to a greater extent than at any point since 1991. Today, we heard the news that FE colleges are to be blitzed by this Government, thus impacting on those aged 16 to 19 and those who engage in part-time work and study who seek to increase their productivity through improving their skills. There is even the suggestion that 40% of them should close. How on earth can the Government justify that? In the last debate we had on productivity, the Minister made an extremely acceptable defence of the progress of his plans for improving productivity but referred to the role of the education system in improving productivity simply in terms of the universities. Now I know why he did that as he, or certainly his Government, intended to blitz the opportunities for those who do not go to university but who need the skills which our society now largely tends to import from abroad. The Government are doing devastating damage to a sector of the economy which is necessary to increase productivity.
We jolly well need to increase productivity because our balance of payments deficit is at its highest level since modern records began. If this Government were analysed on the basis of the big debates on the viability of the economy that took place in the 1970s, when even importing a few aircraft could cause a Government great balance of payments difficulties, the situation this Government are in at present would be deemed absolutely chronic and one that far outweighs the anxieties that obtained at that time.
The Chancellor told us that his 2010 Budget would ensure that borrowing would reach only £37 billion by 2014-15. Last year, it was more than £87 billion. He said that public sector net debt would be 69% in 2014-15. It was in fact 80.2%. He also promised that the deficit would be eliminated. He has failed on all those counts. Therefore, while I accept the points made in the Minister’s opening remarks, I hope that he will also address the other side of the picture, which is all too bleak.
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, yet again we have had an extremely interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords for their excellent contributions. As has become my wont in previous debates, especially when not too many noble Lords have spoken, I will attempt to respond to most of what my modest brain could understand about what everybody said. I apologise in advance if I forget some of you, or if I misunderstood some parts.
Let me start with two overall points, especially concerning the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the economy in general, because they link to a number of things that noble Lords touched on. Also—I will come back to this issue when I respond to the comments about welfare—it is very important when we debate government policy that we do not forget that it is presented in this Bill in the context of the mandate the Government sought and, importantly, secured in the election that they won with a majority. In the election campaign, the Government made it pretty clear that they were committed to deficit reduction, debt reduction, as low tax as possible and a low welfare spending environment. By and large, that is the framework that has shaped this Budget.
On the economy, I will address the three points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, touched on in his interesting closing comments. First, I said in my opening comments that we have had considerable discussions about productivity and, given its importance, I am sure we will have many more in this place in the future. I welcome many of the insightful comments that a number of noble Lords made about aspects of productivity. I hope we can learn as we go along, because this is a complex and huge challenge.
As I have pointed out, it is not only the UK economy that has experienced challenges in the past few years. If we can believe the reported data, even some of the supposedly highly productive economies seem to have struggled recently. In addition to the caveat that we will soon get early indications from the independent review which the Government authorised Charlie Bean to undertake—I hope it will include some indications of how productivity is measured—in the most recent quarter, we have some evidence that productivity has started to improve. It is far too dangerous to presume that that is the beginning of a sizeable and permanent improvement, but the latest data show the best improvement since 2011.
On an important and closely related aspect—in my experience, the two go hand in hand—over the past two quarters there have been more encouraging signs about the performance of investment spending. According to our GDP accounts, at least, investment spending has become a more important, positive contributor to GDP. However, I quickly add that, according to some recent business surveys, there has been some softening in the confidence of apparent business investment intentions, which is probably related to global events.
On the balance of payments issue, as I have touched on in previous debates but would like to re-emphasise, it is quite intriguing that our trade deficit, which is usually the subject of most people’s focus on our seemingly never-ending poor performance, has not deteriorated. In fact, it has actually shown some signs of improvement, especially in recent months. But in the main identifiable parts of the accounts, it is the so-called invisibles surplus that has deteriorated. That could be due to something substantial, but it could be something to do with valuation and accounting treatment that is not necessarily going to be permanent, and there may be some questions about the validity of some of the statistics. At the risk of my sounding like a bit of a nerd, the newly appointed governor of the Central Bank of Ireland is a known expert on international balance of payments issues, and it was very interesting to read his suggestion that some of the apparent deterioration in our invisibles account may relate to the behaviour and book-keeping of international companies, which is among the reasons why it is very important that we embolden HMRC to do the work it is tasked with doing. I will come back to this in a few minutes.
I turn now to the individual, very useful comments that noble Lords made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, spent some time talking about the environment for our tax policy with reference to the fragile economy. In addition to what I have just said, it is quite interesting that the very latest high-frequency indicators, specifically the purchasing managers’ indices for the most recent finishing month, showed in both the manufacturing and services sectors a notable—and to some degree, even for someone like me, surprisingly strong—acceleration. I am not so sure, other than being cognisant of the never-ending uncertainties that go hand in hand with life and the state of the world, quite where the fragilities that he referred to are. I would add in that regard that the tax policy path and the spending path this Government have chosen to pursue do not appear to be slowing the economic recovery, although of course the evidence varies from month to month, depending on the individual economic data.
On the second general point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, the so-called tampon tax—I apologise for reading the brief; I do not like to do that in my closing comments, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate—the UK does apply a 5% VAT rate to sanitary products, which is the lowest rate currently allowable under EU rules. During the debate in the other House on this issue on 26 October, my fellow Treasury Minister David Gauke said that he would raise the issue with the European Commission and other member states, setting out the Government’s view. I can advise the House that David has now written to the Commission and other member states setting out our strong position that member states should have full discretion over what rate of VAT they can apply to those products.
Turning to the considerable number of lengthy but, as always, very interesting comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, again, I apologise that I will not be able to go through them all in the remaining time, but I want to touch on a number of points that relate to both the big picture and the specifics. On the overall nature of fiscal policy, the spending cuts and the figures to which she referred, let me repeat—even though everyone in this place, the other place and the country are aware of this—that one of the reasons why certain areas are being cut to the levels proposed is that the Government, in addition to emphasising their commitment to the lowest tax possible and to deficit and debt reduction, have consciously and deliberately, as part of the election campaign and since, promised to protect key areas which, in my own judgment, are vital to the long-term performance of our country. These are health, education, foreign aid and investment spending and, of course, spending linked to security challenges—following the latest Budget— and defence. It follows by definition that, if you are protecting those areas and are committed, as we are, to deficit and debt reduction, the other unprotected areas have to take the lion’s share of the work.
It is in that context that the interesting comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about welfare payments, and those of many others, should be considered. I am sure—following the rather emotive and intriguing debates we have had about that topic in this House, and what noble Lords have heard from the Chancellor, when he said that he would listen and set out in the Autumn Statement what he would do to address the concerns raised about the transition from a high-welfare, low-wage economy to a lower-welfare, higher-wage economy—that we will have some of these debates again in the future.
However, I will highlight, of the many statistics that are often quoted in debates in the other place and in here, one that I think that we cannot forget. We are about 4% of global GDP and about 1% of the world’s population. It is the case that today, we are spending about 7% of the world’s welfare payments. If we do not believe that we can do something about that, it is a pretty worrying state of affairs, particularly when our economy has improved as much as it has done; and, let me emphasise—in contrast to the tone that was adopted by a number of comments—when we have record levels of full-time employment that are showing continued signs of improving further. If we cannot tackle some of the welfare payment challenges during an economic environment like that, then it is a pretty concerning sign, even though the complexity of our welfare payment system in itself makes it pretty challenging to ensure that none of the policies being pursued has some unforeseen consequences that we did not wish to introduce.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others made quite a few comments about skills. I cannot spend too much time on that other than to reiterate, as I said during both the last productivity debate and a previous one, that in my own personal judgment the challenge of skills, within all the factors relevant to the future performance of productivity, will perhaps be the highest one that we face.
It was very interesting and slightly distressing to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, towards the end of his speech, when he suggested that in my previous reference to this I gave the impression that the only thing that mattered was higher education. Let me emphasise right here that that is far from the case, which is why, in the productivity plan, and linked to it, we are very proud of the fact that we have introduced the apprenticeship levy to put more responsibility on the corporate sector, as is the case in some of our fellow developed economies, Germany being a particularly model example in this area. We are also proud that the corporate sector itself essentially picks up a lot bigger share of the indirect, and perhaps even direct, cost of education spending, certainly as it relates to skills. In highlighting further education in the productivity plan, we focused on improving the quality of the further educational attainments of our young adults rather than just their number—both of course are important. I cannot emphasise enough—on my own behalf and, I believe, that of the Government—that there is great awareness of the importance of this challenge and the importance of not just focusing on it in higher education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and other noble Lords touched on the Government’s so-called lack of commitment to green policy. The Government remain committed to trying to improve the carbon performance of our economy but they are also trying to be even more focused on the value for money that goes along with a number of these individual policies from the past, especially in the circumstances of our desire to commit to a lower deficit and lower debt.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and a number of other noble Lords also touched on corporation tax, asking why we are continuing to lower it and, in some cases, why we were favouring large corporations relative to SMEs. I could spend a lot of time on this topic but will just highlight that in the past few weeks, the UK has been recognised positively by independent and globally recognised experts on such measures. I will name just two. In the World Bank’s review of the cost and ease of doing business, we have just overtaken the United States and are now ahead of them on that. Our stance on transparency and tax policy was also mentioned in that review, as it was by the Legatum Institute, which said that the UK’s leadership in Europe is accelerating relative to our European neighbours.
My noble friend Lord Cavendish made some very interesting comments about infrastructure. We are having discussions with many parts of the country about devolution and giving regions more responsibility for some big issues for their future. He touched on a couple of them, and may be aware that Barrow, in Cumbria, is one of the many we are having discussions with. I hope that at some stage those discussions will result in a fruitful outcome for Barrow.
More broadly, I emphasise to the House that I spend considerable time on the fascinating challenge of infrastructure. Whether it be project bonds or any other form of bonds, I am trying to challenge my own mind and my own past of many decades in finance, and the finance industry. At a time when we have such remarkably low bond yields all over the world, rising equity valuations and considerable amounts of cash, along with a massive infrastructure challenge here and elsewhere in the world, somebody in the future weeks, months or years will help us come up with a smart way of doing this that is not just some artificial way of putting it back on the Government’s balance sheets. Many of the suggestions that have been put to me typically end up doing that.
In that regard, I also highlight the very successful role played by the UK government guarantee scheme, which so far is showing signs of helping us boost the scale of our national infrastructure ambition. I cannot finish on that topic without highlighting the fact that since I last spoke in this House, we have announced an independent National Infrastructure Commission, which will pressurise this Government and future Governments over how we rise to these very complex and ambitious infrastructure challenges with our beautiful and complex democracy. Part of the purpose and why I believe that that is such an important thing for us to do is to put us under more pressure to meet those challenges.
I realise that I have taken up 20 minutes of your Lordships’ valuable time, and I now apologise to several noble Lords that I have not had the chance to speak to their individual comments. At the risk of going beyond 20 minutes, I would like to touch quickly on the issue of HMRC, which several noble Lords mentioned.
To meet our fiscal and debt reduction commitments, the Government are committed to trying to tackle tax avoidance. Although it will remain a challenge, given the ambitions that we have set, we are committing the right resources to enable HMRC to ask the right questions and pursue those who are not meeting their obligations. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lords, Lord Flight and Lord Howard, but I can say with some confidence on their specific question that we think there is plenty of protection for people’s individual rights.
I draw to a close. I thank all noble Lords again for their valuable comments, and commend the Bill to the House.
Consolidation etc. Bills Committee
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text